Skip to content

Family ‘robbed’ of land by gov’t fights back

July 24, 2017

Bob Unruh


Source …..

Nationwide campaign launched to overturn U.S. Supreme Court

A team of property rights advocates, lawyers and state lawmakers has joined forces for a nationwide campaign to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Murr family of Wisconsin went to court several years ago when members sought to sell a vacant parcel of land their late parents bought decades ago. The family wanted to fund repairs on the family cabin on the adjacent lot but were blocked by local officials, who contended the two parcels were actually one lot.

The recent ruling deprived the Murr family of the value of the extra piece of land, a “taking” by the government that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The family was denied any compensation for the land.

The Pacific Legal Institute, which defended the family, said the Murrs “had been effectively robbed by regulators of a family legacy.”

The government not only said the family could not sell the land, it ordered them not to make any productive use of it. The “maneuver” they used to avoid liability was to claim that the two lots were a single unit.

Now the Murr family, representatives of the foundation and others are launching an effort to reverse the high court’s decision.

Joined recently by two Wisconsin state lawmakers, John Groen, Pacific Legal’s general counsel, announced a plan to restore property rights nationwide.

The legislation proposed in Wisconsin, the starting point, was written by state Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst; and Rep. Adam Jarchow, R-Balsam Lake.

The goal is to prohibit “government from inventing ways to strip people of the use of their property while denying them the compensation that the Constitution requires.”

Donna Murr declared, “What happened to my family should not happen to any American, and the Supreme Court’s ruling must not be the final word.

“We are grateful to Sen. Tiffany and Rep. Jarchow for proposing tangible measures to strengthen the rights that were weakened by the Supreme Court’s decision. We are also grateful to Pacific Legal Foundation for its determination to fight nationwide until the setback from the Supreme Court’s ruling is overcome. The Murr family is proud to have helped raise everyone’s awareness about the importance of property rights, and we will continue to stand up for our own rights and those of all Americans.”

The Murrs were “victims of a government stratagem” that took their rights to use the land they inherited from their parents, Pacific Legal said.

“They were denied the ability to use or sell a vacant parcel along the St. Croix River that was handed down as a family legacy. The government declared the lot substandard – based on regulations imposed after the family purchased it. Officials said the Murrs were owed no compensation because they also own an adjacent parcel, on which their family cabin sits. By a 5-3 majority, the Supreme Court accepted this regulatory maneuver by which officials avoided paying for a regulatory taking,” the foundation reported.

The plan is to grandfather lots that were buildable when they were purchased, even if they do not meet later standards.

The foundation intends to go nationwide to seek court rulings and legal changes “that will ensure that property owners cannot be denied their constitutional rights simply because they own adjacent property or because local land use regulations might subsequently change.”

“PLF has always been recognized not only for our principles but for our persistence,” said PLF President Steven Anderson. “We have never allowed near-term obstacles to deter us from pursuing long-term victory in our ongoing fight for individual liberty. Our response to the Murr decision will be no different: We are embarking on a nationwide campaign to undo its damage and ultimately leave property owners’ rights stronger than before.”

WND reported the government told the family their additional land was not only worthless, they had to keep paying property taxes on it every year.

The parents of Donna, Joseph and Michael Murr, and Peggy Heaver, bought a St. Croix riverfront parcel and built a cabin for their own use in 1960. They also, a few years later, bought the adjacent, separate, lot as an investment, hoping to cash in when property values rose.

But in the 1970s, new land-use rules were imposed that limited the area of land that could be developed. As typically happens in those circumstances, the existing parcels were grandfathered under the previous rules, which meant the new limits wouldn’t apply.

However, in this case bureaucrats declared the rules would apply if the property owner owned an adjacent piece of land. That means the government now officially considers the two parcels purchased by the Murrs one lot, even though they legally are separate entities and property taxes still are collected every year on both.


Rancher, Sheriff Clash over Seized Horses

July 24, 2017

Bob Price


Source …..

A North Dakota rancher is battling to keep custody of his horses after the county sheriff, a discredited veterinarian, and an anonymous call from an out-of-state person rained down the unconstitutional seizure of his animals, he says. He now faces animal neglect and abuse criminal charges, including a felony charge.

This dispute arises out of laws passed in the North Dakota legislature in 2012 after lobbying from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF).

Rancher Gary Dassinger, who is also a licensed clinical social worker, has raised constitutional objections to the actions taken by the sheriff’s office, as well as the application of the state’s law that became effective in 2013.

A preliminary hearing in the criminal prosecution is scheduled for July 31.

In April, a Stark County deputy sheriff came to the Dassinger ranch and said they had been notified that there were dead and “thin” animals on the ranch. The Dassingers later learned that the complaint came from a person who had never been to his ranch and did not live in North Dakota.

Protect the Harvest, an organization that protects the rights of farmers, ranchers, and hunters, explains the circumstances surrounding the death of the three animals, including one due to electrocution. The article details that the animals did not die from abuse, malnourishment, or other neglect. The Protect the Harvest website also noted the proximity of the winter’s end.

Stark County Sheriff Terry Oestreich and a veterinarian, Dr. Kim Brummond arrived at the ranch after the anonymous call was made. “We have a problem,” Sheriff Oestreich told him.

The veterinarian then announced, “We are taking the mare and foal that are back at the house. There is no discussion. That’s what’s going to happen.” According to the article, the rancher asked, “Why?” She replied, “So they don’t die.”

According to information obtained from representatives with Protect the Harvest, Dassinger and the sheriff’s department have been crossways in the past when Dassinger, in his role as a social worker, recommended that a prisoner be placed on suicide watch. The sheriff’s department allegedly did not heed the recommendation of the social worker, and the prisoner committed suicide.

The anonymous complaint from an out-of-state source followed a period where Dassinger was recovering from hip surgery and hired a ranch hand to care for his animals, according to an article posted on Protect the Harvest.

Protect the Harvest has also challenged the doctor’s credibility, noting a defamation lawsuit that landed a $260,000 judgment against the veterinarian. The North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the judgment in a 2004 ruling.

Dassinger said the sheriff never served a warrant or any other papers authorizing the seizure, but he seized the mare and the foal.

Breitbart Texas asked Sheriff Oestreich why there was no warrant. The sheriff said he did not need a warrant because there were three “thin” horses which were visible from the roadway. The sheriff also said that once he drove onto the ranch, other “thin” horses were visible in plain view.

On May 17, North Dakota State Representative Luke Simons, who also served as a Stark County Sheriff’s Department volunteer deputy, visited the ranch after news of the seizure spread. He interviewed Dassinger and took a tour, and it including filming the livestock. Representative Simons posted the video of the interview and the stock on his Facebook page.

“I went there with an open mind, thinking there was a good chance that animals were neglected,” Simons wrote. “However, I have seen and have had neglected animals that we have rescued. It takes months and months for animals to look like this if they were so bad they could not be moved. This video was taken three weeks after that accusation was made.”

Sheriff Oestreich later contacted Rep. Simons and reportedly told him his services with the department were no longer needed.

Following the ranch tour, Rep. Simons’ wife Aliesha Simons set up a GoFundMe page to help the Dassinger’s with their legal expenses.

At issue in the case is the 2013 law passed by the legislature. Protect the Harvest reported some key provisions of the bill which include:

  • 36-21.2-01. Neglect–Definition–Exemptions—Penalty 1. Any person that willfully engages in animal neglect is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
  • 36-21.2-02. Animal abuse–Definition–Exemptions—Penalty 1. Any person that willfully engages in animal abuse is guilty of a class A misdemeanor for a first or a second offense and a class C felony for a third or subsequent offense occurring within ten years.
  • 36-21.2-03. Animal cruelty–Definition–Exemptions—Penalty 1. Any person that intentionally engages in animal cruelty is guilty of a class C felony.
  • 36-21.2-10. Veterinarian — If upon examining an animal a licensed veterinarian determines that there is reasonable cause to believe an animal has been neglected, abused, treated cruelly, or subjected to any act or omission in violation of this chapter, the veterinarian may retain custody of the animal and shall immediately notify law enforcement officials regarding the determination.  Note: Shall means must.  Therefore, by law the veterinarian must immediately notify law enforcement.
  • 36-21.2-05. Seizure of animal–Court order 1. A law enforcement officer may petition the court for an order directing the seizure of any animal believed to have been neglected, abused, treated cruelly, or subjected to any act or omission in violation of this chapter. 2. The court may act without notice to the animal’s owner or to the person having custody or control of the animal and may rely solely on testimony or an affidavit in considering the petition. 3. In the order for seizure, the court may direct that a veterinarian humanely destroy an animal if the veterinarian, upon examining the animal, determines that the animal is experiencing excruciating pain or suffering and that the animal’s pain or suffering is not likely to be alleviated using reasonable medical interventions.
  • 36-21.1-14 Assumption of custody – Immunity from liability. Any sheriff, police officer, licensed veterinarian, investigator, or person who has custody of an animal under this chapter and who is acting in an official or professional capacity and making a good-faith effort to comply with this chapter is immune from any civil or criminal liability for acts taken or omitted while attempting to comply with this chapter.

During a recent court hearing, veterinarian Dr. Chance Noyce provided information to the court about the condition of Dassinger’s animals prior to their seizure. Dr. Noyce stated he felt the cattle and horses he observed on April 25 had “normal body conditions.” He recommended treatments for some lice and new feeding procedures. He also provided necessary vaccinations for the yearlings and a two-year-old colt, according to a court document attached below.

The judge stated there was evidence that several of Dassinger’s animals had been neglected but said the petition to seize the animals and subsequent petition to dispose of a seized animal came at a time “when the situation had been corrected to the point that seizure and disposition were no longer appropriate.”

The judge ordered the animals to be returned to Dassinger’s care.

More information on this case can be found at According to its mission statement:

Your rights and ability to feed your family are under attack.

Most Americans are completely unaware.

Extreme special interests in America have evolved into a wealthy and successful attack industry determined to control our farmers, eliminate hunting, outlaw animal exhibitions (like rodeos and circuses), and restrict animal ownership.

The result is an America that is less free and less prosperous, with reduced access to affordable food. Protect The Harvest was created to defend and preserve the freedoms of American consumers, farmers, ranchers, outdoor enthusiasts, and animal owners.


Loose Lips Sink Ships: Mueller Probe Team Starts Leaking Special Counsel Investigation Details to Press

July 22, 2017

Kristina Wong


Source …..

The team charged with investigating whether there was any collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia now appears to be leaking details of the probe to damage him.

“A person familiar with the probe” told Bloomberg that the special counsel is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump and his associates’ businesses.

The leak comes the day after Trump told the New York Times in an interview that delving into his business matters would be outside the bounds of the Russia investigation.

“The Special Counsel’s Office has undertaken stringent controls to prohibit unauthorized disclosures that deal severely with any member who engages in this conduct,” Joshua Stueve, spokesman for the Special Counsel’s Office told Breitbart News in an email response.

The team is led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller, and four of the six attorneys on the team donated to the Democratic National Committee or Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, according to Axios.

James Quarles donated almost $33,000 to Democrats, including Clinton and former President Barack Obama. Jeannie Rhee donated more than $16,000 since 2008 to Democrats, including the maximum donation possible to Clinton in both 2015 and 2016. She has also donated to Obama. Andrew Weissmann donated more than $4,000 to Obama in 2008 and $2,000 to the DNC in 2006, and Elizabeth Prelogar donated $250 each to Clinton in 2016 and Obama in 2012.

Trump and Republican lawmakers have questioned the impartiality of Mueller and the probe, which was created after former FBI Director James Comey leaked a memo to the media for the purpose of prompting a special counsel.

Specifically, the person told Bloomberg that investigators are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, and Trump’s involvement in a “controversial SoHo development” with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008.

The probe is also reportedly extending to other members of the administration, such as Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s dealings with the Bank of Cyprus, where he served as chairman.

It is also examining Jared Kushner’s efforts to secure financing for some of his family’s real estate properties.

“The information was provided by someone familiar with the developing inquiry but not authorized to speak publicly,” the report said.

The “roots” of the new line of inquiry lie in a “wide-ranging money laundering probe” that was launched by former prosecutor Preet Bharara, a friend of Comey who was fired by Trump in March before the probe could finish.

That probe, launched last year during the presidential election, involved gathering information on Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort, according to “two people with knowledge of that probe.” That probe is now consolidated into the special counsel’s probe.

John Dowd, one of Trump’s lawyers, told Bloomberg he was unaware of this element of the investigation.

“Those transactions are in my view well beyond the mandate of the Special counsel; are unrelated to the election of 2016 or any alleged confusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and most importantly, are well beyond any Statute of Limitation imposed by the United States Code,” he said in an email to the outlet.


The 20 diseases ‘refugees’ bring into the West

July 22, 2017

Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.


Source …..

Since 2005, Americans have been warned about microscopic border crossers carried in with refugees and illegal immigrants, bringing diseases previously eradicated or rarely seen here. When not simply ignored by media and health officials, physicians and others sounding the alarm have been attacked as xenophobes.

Now we’re seeing these prescient predictions come true, most prominently in Germany, since 2015 when Angela Merkel began allowing more than 2 million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East to flood into her country.

U.S. and German citizens are put at significant risk by the politically correct acceptance of unscreened immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of infectious diseases, many difficult or impossible to treat. Yet authorities in both countries have failed to fully inform the public of the dangers.

According to the July 2017 Infectious Disease Epidemiology Annual Report by the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Germany has seen a surge in chicken pox, cholera, dengue fever, tuberculosis, leprosy, measles, malaria, meningococcal diseases, hemorrhagic fevers, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, typhus, toxoplasmosis, tularemia, trichinellosis, whooping cough, and many fungal and parasitic infections. Here are a few striking examples:

Measles is up more than 450 percent. Hepatitis B is up 300 percent. Scabies escalated nearly 3,000 percent. HIV/AIDS increased 30 percent. Tuberculosis (TB) is at least 30 percent higher – but German and U.S. physicians suspect that the incidence of TB is actually far higher than reported, and is being downplayed to avoid causing public outrage over the influx of immigrants. In Germany, more than 40 percent of TB cases are multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB).Dengue fever is up over 25 percent just from 2014.

A similar pattern has emerged in the U.S. since the massive increase in illegal border crossers and refugees beginning in 2010.

As in the U.S., many hundreds of thousands of migrants “disappear” into cities and towns across Germany, without a health screening. There is no way to monitor them for disease or to ensure adequate treatment. Citizens are exposed without their knowledge; risks are especially serious for children and the elderly.

In a briefing to the Arizona Senate in 2016, experts reported that the U.S. is suffering near “pandemic medical issues” due to the continuous influx of illegal aliens and refugees from countries where infectious diseases are widespread. As of 2016, two states were in the Catastrophic Phase and another 13 were in the Critical Phase of public health impact from these infectious diseases. Arizona was No. 9 of 13 states in the Critical Phase but was expected to move into the Catastrophic Phase by fall of 2016 as a result of people who are latent carriers of disease or who entered the country during the incubation period for a disease. We were unable to learn the current status from personal calls to Arizona county and state officials.

TB is one of the most serious threats. Latent TB can remain dormant for years, even decades. It is alarming that 18 percent of refugees in Arizona arrive with latent TB, while in the general Arizona population the incidence was only 4 percent. Multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB), common in migrants, may cost more than $400,000 per patient, compared with $20,000 for the drug-responsive TB that has been predominant in U.S.-born patients. Treatment of MDR-TB has serious side effects, with no guarantee of success.

U.S. taxpayers pay this cost. In addition, all who might have been exposed to an active case must be screened, followed and possibly treated.

Even healthy immigrants burden the system with social costs, such as housing, education and food stamps – costs borne by taxpaying workers whose own wages are depressed by competition from a glut of low-paid foreigners. Illegal immigrants are estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers $17 billion per year. That $17 billion is in addition to the costs for those allowed here legally under “refugee” status, for which we do not have reliable public estimates.

Liberal and progressive politicians like to say, “America is the land of immigrants.” In the past, this meant legal immigrants who follow our screening procedures for illness and other laws and who are coming to America to be part of our culture.

Medical screening was one of the core purposes of the Ellis Island immigration center in New York. New arrivals were examined, quarantined if needed, or sent back to their country of origin if they posed a risk to Americans.

To protect the health and safety of American citizens, we must reinstate our prior customary medical screening as outlined on our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

For national security and medical concerns, President Trump is correct to enforce our immigration laws, with careful vetting of those seeking to come to America to live and work.


Hillary Clinton sided with Russia on sanctions as Bill made $500G on Moscow speech

July 22, 2017

Malia Zimmerman


Source …..

The Russian lawyer who landed a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. during last year’s presidential campaign with the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton had one big thing in common with the Democratic candidate: Both had opposed Russia sanctions targeting human-rights abusers.

Further, former Secretary of State Clinton’s initial opposition coincided with a $500,000 speech her husband gave in Moscow – a link her 2016 campaign fought to downplay in the press, according to WikiLeaks-released documents.

Trump White House officials now are trying to draw attention to that speech and the Clintons’ ties to Russia in a bid to counter criticism over Trump Jr.’s now-infamous meeting.

“If you want to talk about having relationships with Russia, I’d look no further than the Clintons,” Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a briefing last week. “Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give a speech to a Russian bank, personally thanked by President Putin.”

“With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow.”

– May, 2015 email from Clinton campaign staffer

The former president indeed had received a personal call from then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressing his appreciation for the speech. According to Mrs. Clinton’s ethics disclosure form filed while she was secretary of State, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by the Russia-based finance company Renaissance Capital for his June 29, 2010, speech in Moscow to its employees and guests attending the company’s annual conference.

The speech is now coming back to haunt the Clintons, considering the company that cut the check was allegedly tied to the scandal that spurred the Global Magnitsky Act, a bill that imposed sanctions on Russians designated as human-rights abusers and eventually would become law in 2012.

This was the same law Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya was lobbying against during her sit-down with Trump Jr. last year. And back in 2010, it would have put the Clintons on her side.

Shortly before Bill Clinton’s speech in 2010, when members of Congress pushing the sanctions bill had asked Hillary Clinton to refuse visas to Russian officials implicated under the policy, the State Department denied the request. The Obama administration initially was opposed to the Magnitsky Act because then-President Barack Obama was seeking a “reset” with Russia and did not want to deepen the divide between the two countries.

Former President Bill Clinton’s speech to Renaissance just weeks later was all the more curious, considering Renaissance’s Russian investment bank executives would have been banned from the U.S. under the law.

Fast-forward to 2015, and the timeline apparently had caught the attention of Bloomberg News.

According to a memo from Clinton’s presidential campaign team later published by WikiLeaks, however, the Clinton campaign was able to stop the presses.

“With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow,” Jesse Lehrich, on the Rapid Response Communications team for Hillary For America, boasted on May 21, 2015.

The Global Magnitsky Act was named for 36-year-old tax attorney Sergei Magnitsky, who died in the custody of the Russian government after accusing the government and organized crime of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from a foreign company, Hermitage Capital Management. Magnitsky, hired by foreign investor and Hermitage owner William Browder, had tracked what turned out to be hundreds of millions of dollars in tax fraud. He reported the fraud to the Russian authorities, but instead of pursuing charges against the alleged offender, Russian authorities jailed Magnitsky.

After Magnitsky died in November 2009, Browder said Magnitsky proved Renaissance officials were among those orchestrating the scheme.

The State Department finally reversed its position in 2011 and refused visas to some Russians purportedly involved in the financial fraud seeking to enter the country.

The Magnitsky Act passed with bipartisan support in 2012.

Russia retaliated against the U.S., ending any possibility for Americans to adopt Russian orphans and also banning 18 U.S. officials from entering their country.


Average Price of Movie Tickets Hits Record High as Summer Box Office Slumps

July 22, 2017

Jerome Hudson


Source …..

While summer box office revenue continues its steady decline this year, the average price per movie ticket continues to rise.

According to a new report from the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), the average price American consumers paid for a ticket hit a new high in the second quarter of 2017, at $8.95 — a figure that represents a 2.5 percent increase from exactly a year ago, though the figures are not adjusted for inflation.

The rise in the average ticket price is due partly to consumers’ increasing propensity to patronize luxury theaters that offer dinning, recliner seating, and larger screens — with venues like AMC Entertainment and Regal Entertainment offering extra amenities at a higher price point per ticket.

And there could be even more innovation in store for traditional movie theaters; this week, Samsung unveiled its brand new “Cinema LED Screen,” a mammoth, 34-foot high-resolution display that could negate the need for theaters to use digital projectors.

The increase in ticket cost does, ironically, coincide with a summer movie season that has seen an eight percent drop to date over summer 2016 in overall domestic box office receipts.

While Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy 2,  Sony’s Spider-Man: Homecoming, DC’s Wonder Woman, and Twentieth Century Fox’s War for the Planet of the Apes have been huge blockbuster successes, bloated-budget sequels and remakes — Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Transformers: The Last Knight, Alien: Covenant, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, The Mummy, and Baywatch — have been major flops.

The increase in average ticket prices comes as Netflix and other streaming services attempt to eat in to theater revenue by offering exclusive content that can be watched at home. Netflix announced this week that it had added 5.3 million subscribers in the second quarter of 2017, far exceeding Wall Street analysts’ prediction of 3.23 million new subscribers.


GOP, Dems Plotting ‘DREAM Act’ for Illegal Aliens

July 20, 2017

John Binder


Source …..

Establishment Republicans and Democrats are teaming up on Capitol Hill to bring back legislation that would give amnesty to hundreds of thousands of young illegal aliens in the United States.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Dick Durbin (R-IL) are working on a replica version of the Obama-era “DREAM Act,” according to McClatchy, which has long been supported by Democrats and the Republican establishment.

When asked about working with Graham on resurrecting the amnesty legislation, Graham responded “We’re working on it. We’ll see.”

Under the legislation, the hundreds of thousands of young illegal aliens currently being protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, created by former President Obama, would be given legal status and potentially a pathway to citizenship.

Center for Immigration Studies Director Mark Krikorian told Breitbart Texas that if amnesty is being considered for the young illegal aliens, often referred to as DREAMers, then cutting down legal immigration levels should also be on the table.

“We’re talking about three-quarters of a million people included in this,” Krikorian said. “There’s got to be a legal immigration offset. The DREAM Act on its own is simply indefensible.”

Similar to what Breitbart Texas noted, Krikorian said the Trump Administration should review a trade-off for the DREAM Act where the GOP will support the bill if mandatory E-Verify and Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-AK) legal immigration-slashing legislation, the RAISE Act, are passed as well.

Cotton’s RAISE Act is a favorite among immigration hawks and pro-American worker advocates, as it would cut legal immigration levels – where the U.S. brings in over one million foreigners a year – by 50 percent and dramatically reduce the number of Green Cards allotted.

Still, Krikorian says his fear is that the Trump administration and GOP are “going to give away the DREAM Act for nothing.”

“That would be a catastrophe,” Krikorian said.

Despite promises to shutter DACA, the Trump administration has not only not closed the backdoor amnesty program, but they have signed up new illegal aliens on the DACA rolls, which allows recipients to work legally in the U.S., as Breitbart News reported. Trump was pushed by multinational business executives like Steven Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group to keep the program running.

A 10-state coalition signed a letter vowing a lawsuit against Trump’s administration for continuing DACA, as Breitbart Texas reported.

Attorney generals from Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho, West Virginia, Texas, along with the Governor of Idaho, have signed the letter threatening a lawsuit over DACA.


Was Donald Trump Jr.’s Russian Meeting a Criminal Act?

July 20, 2017

Andrew P. Napolitano


Source …..

Last week, The New York Times revealed that in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son; Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and chief confidant; Paul Manafort, Trump’s then-campaign chief executive; and others met secretly at Trump Tower with a former Russian prosecutor and a former Soviet counterintelligence agent to discuss what negative (most likely computer-generated) information the Russians might have to offer them about Hillary Clinton.

Within days of the meeting, the elder Trump announced publicly that he would soon release a litany of reasons why Clinton was unqualified to be president and that they would include new allegations about Clinton and Russia. The new allegations did not come.

When the Times reporters asked the younger Trump about the meeting last week, he initially claimed it concerned Americans adopting Russian babies. Then he claimed it was about Russian concerns over American economic sanctions on select Russians. When the reporters told him they had his emails, which tell a different story, he released his emails to the public so as to beat the Times to the punch.

Then, media hell broke loose about whether the Trump campaign was working with the Russians to acquire information about Clinton, and, particularly, whether any Trump campaign officials engaged in criminal behavior.

Here is the backstory:

No seasoned campaign official would have met with foreign people, particularly former government officials, in order to discuss any materials they might have about an opponent, because the acquisition of materials from a foreign person or government is illegal under federal law. The inquiry that Donald Jr. received from a friend who served as an intermediary between the Trump campaign and the Russians should have been run past the campaign’s legal counsel, who no doubt would have told his colleagues to stay clear of such a proposed meeting, and then reported the overture to the FBI.

Donald Jr. claims that the meeting lasted 20 to 30 minutes and produced nothing of value or of interest to the campaign. Yet the emails paint a picture of him as hungry for dirt on Hillary (“if it’s what you say I love it,” he wrote), and ready, willing and able to meet with the Russians to see what they had.

Was Donald Jr.’s meeting a criminal act?

Standing alone, the meeting itself was probably not a criminal act. But the varying versions of it that have been given by the president and his son (Were you lying then, or are you lying now?); and the failure of Kushner, who has a national security clearance, to advise the FBI of it in his application for the security clearance (Did you not know they were Russians?); and the presence of an ex-Soviet counterintelligence agent (Did you not know he had been a spy?) at the meeting all give rise to the level of articulable suspicion, which is the constitutional minimum standard to commence a criminal investigation.

In this case — where the Department of Justice has named a special counsel to examine the role of Russian agents in the 2016 presidential election — the articulable suspicion standard will surely trigger the special counsel’s involvement. Stated differently, while the Trump Tower meeting alone was probably not a criminal act because speech unaccompanied by behavior or agreement is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, its existence alone is enough to cause the special counsel to commence a criminal investigation of the participants to determine whether a crime was committed then and there, or elsewhere.

I have been listening for more than a week to many of my respected colleagues asking, “Where is the crime?” and I understand their inquiry. Yet the crimes for which the special counsel is looking rarely fit into a neat package. Unlike a bank robber who uses a gun to get cash from a bank teller — a crime that has a beginning and an end — white-collar crime often involves nuance and mental state and the behavior of third parties sometimes unknown to the original participants.

Thus, an FBI agent or Department of Justice lawyer might compare the Trump Tower meeting to a thief displaying stolen jewelry to a group of potential purchasers, who initially rejected the jewelry. And thus, the feds might want to know whether others decided to view the jewelry, or whether there was a meeting of some of the minds at Trump Tower but perhaps Donald Jr. was excluded from such an assembly. As well, they might inquire as to whether this was an attempt to use foreign people to gather data about Clinton.

We know it is a felony for a campaign official to accept something of value from a foreign national or a foreign government; and we know that because campaigns legally pay folks to do opposition research, that research is a thing of value. It is a felony for a campaign official to conspire to acquire a thing of value from a foreign national, even if the thing of value never arrives. It is also a felony for a campaign official to take a material step in furtherance of acquiring a thing of value from a foreign national, even if the thing of value never comes. And it is a felony for anyone without a search warrant to facilitate computer hacking for any purpose.

All this brings us back to Donald Jr.’s meeting. Was it a crime? We will need to await the outcome of the FBI’s investigation and the DOJ’s presentations to a grand jury. But we do know that the harm to the Trump presidency, much of it caused by those close to the president and the president himself, continues its dark march. Where will it end?


Thank You, Rand Paul

July 20, 2017

Chuck Baldwin


Source …..

If you think Obamacare is bad (and it is), Ryancare, Trumpcare, Obamacare 2.0–call it whatever you will–was even worse. In spite of fierce bullying tactics by House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and President Donald Trump, ONE MAN stood like a stonewall against it. He would not be bullied or bribed, and he almost single-handedly stopped this draconian Republican healthcare debacle. That man’s name is Rand Paul.

Here is what Dr. Paul said about the GOP plan:

The Senate Obamacare bill does not repeal Obamacare. Not even close.

In fact, the Senate GOP bill codifies and likely expands many aspects of Obamacare.

The Senate Obamacare-lite bill codifies a federal entitlement to insurance. With the Senate GOP bill, Republicans, for the first time, will signal that they favor a key aspect of Obamacare–federal taxpayer funding of private insurance purchases.

The bill will transfer billions of dollars to people who will then transfer billions of dollars to insurance companies. What a great business model–encourage the federal government to use taxpayer money to buy a private company’s product. Great business model, that is, if you are Big Insurance. Remarkable.

The Senate Obamacare-lite bill does what the Democrats forgot to do–appropriate billions for Obamacare’s cost-sharing reductions, aka subsidies. Really? Republicans are going to fund Obamacare subsidies that the Democrats forgot to fund?

Rand went on to say:

I miss the old days, when Republicans stood for repealing Obamacare. Republicans across the country and every member of my caucus campaigned on repeal–often declaring they would tear out Obamacare “root and branch!”

What happened?

Now too many Republicans are falling all over themselves to stuff hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars into a bill that doesn’t repeal Obamacare and feeds Big Insurance a huge bailout.

Obamacare regulations? Still here. Taxes? Many still in place, totaling hundreds of billions of dollars.

Insurance company bailouts? Those, too. Remember when Republicans complained about Obamacare’s risk corridors? Remember when we called the corridors nothing more than insurance company bailouts? I remember when one prominent GOP candidate during a presidential debate explicitly called out the Obamacare risk corridors as a bailout to insurance companies. Does anyone else?

The Republican congressional leadership was willing to spend up to $200 billion to bribe members of the Republican caucus into supporting this monstrosity. And while conservative pundits and talk show hosts are excoriating McConnell and Ryan as “traitors” to conservatism, they conveniently overlook the fact that President Trump did everything he could do to browbeat and bully recalcitrant members of Congress into supporting the bill. Trump said he would be “very angry” if Congress didn’t pass Obamacare 2.0. “I am sitting in the Oval Office with a pen in hand, waiting for our senators to give it to me,” Trump said. “It has to get passed. They have to do it. They have to get together and get it done.” But Trump was not elected to replace Obamacare with a Republican version that was even WORSE. He was elected on the promise of completely repealing Obamacare.

But McConnell, Ryan, and Trump’s bullying and briberies almost worked. The gutless, groveling gaggle of raunchy Republicans in D.C. was willing to shackle the American taxpayers with this healthcare nightmare. Both parties in D.C. support socialized medicine; they were only fighting over who would take credit for it.

Yes, it almost worked. ALMOST. And in all likelihood, it would have worked except for the sheer grit, guts, and gallantry of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Like Stonewall Jackson at the First Battle of Manasses, Paul stood in the face of unbelievable enemy fire and refused to retreat.

I have always liked Rand, mainly because his father, Ron, and I have been friends for a long time. If I have had a criticism of Rand (and I have), it was because I thought Rand tried to play both ends against the middle too often. Unlike his father, who NEVER compromised a constitutional principle, Rand did compromise from time to time. In truth, had Rand held the ground and spoken out against the establishment during the Republican primary last year the way his dad had done–and the way people were hoping Rand would do–he might have been the GOP presidential nominee instead of Donald Trump. By playing patsy with the establishment, Rand left the door wide open for Trump. But Trump is no Paul. And when the Obamacare fight came up, Rand was up to the challenge.

Maybe it’s because Rand is a physician (like his father) and is more keenly aware of the untold damage socialized medicine is wreaking upon America’s healthcare industry. Maybe it’s because he got tired of the Republican Party selling out the American people with their duplicitous doubletalk. Whatever it was that put the fire in Rand Paul’s belly, it was LONG overdue, MUCH needed, and VERY appreciated.


As for the Republican Party, it is no better than the Democrat Party. Neither party cares a whit about liberty, the Constitution, or the American people. The vast majority of D.C. politicians in both parties are self-centered, power-hungry, money-grubbing, warmongering egomaniacs. Try to name a congressman or senator since Helen Chenoweth and Ron Paul who didn’t come out of Washington with a fortune–and the smell of skunk all over them.

I don’t know what it’s going to take for the American people to wake up, but if we don’t have a revival of State autonomy, and I mean SOON, liberty is doomed in this country. And when liberty fails in America, it fails all over the world.

Unfortunately, almost everyone is fixated on Washington, D.C. So-called conservatives are as bad as liberals: both groups look to the federal government to fix all of their problems. For all intents and purposes, the “Free and Independent States” of our Declaration of Independence have become little more than subjugated satellite serfdoms of that putrid pile of poop on the banks of the Potomac.

Perhaps when people wake up to the fact that the Republican Party isn’t going to save them, that Donald Trump isn’t going to save them, that Trump never intended to save them, that Trump deliberately created an administration that was designed to fail, and that Washington, D.C., is irreparable, MAYBE some of them will begin to do what they should have been doing for the last sixty years: start electing governors, legislators, attorney generals, secretaries of state, and sheriffs that understand the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights–and have the guts to stand up for the liberties and sovereignty of the people of their states against the lunatic leviathan inside the Beltway that is swallowing their liberties whole.

At some point, states are either going to surrender to servitude and slavery or once again declare their independence from an arrogant abridger of freedom that makes old King George look like Patrick Henry by comparison. Right now, however, we can’t seem to elect constitutionalists to even local offices. At the smallest State and local levels, too many politicians are greedy, corrupt, backroom deal-making charlatans. If we cannot clean up the elected offices of our own backyard, how in the name of common sense are we going to clean up Washington, D.C.?

And once again, it always comes down to America’s pulpits. As to the promotion, promulgation, and preservation of liberty, most of them are completely WORTHLESS. Their silence is nothing more than tacit approbation of the evil and corruption that is taking place in their communities and in our country. The fact is, Donald Trump cannot and will not save this country, but your pastor could. Then again, if pastors were doing their part to save the nation, they would lose most of their flocks, because it seems more than obvious that the vast majority of Christians don’t give a tinker’s dam about liberty any more than the politicians they keep electing.

So, in the meantime, we stay fixated on Washington, D.C. But even in that giant cesspool, Rand Paul showed us what ONE MAN with courage and principle is still able to do. Again, I say: thank you, Rand Paul.


GOP Reps Plan To Remove Rule Giving Gov’t Jobs to Illegals

July 19, 2017

Neil Munro


Source …..

GOP legislators, led by Georgia Rep. Tom Graves, are working to kill off a Democratic measure which has been added to the House’s 2018 spending plan and will allow younger illegal immigrants to find jobs in government.

The Democrat-drafted and -backed rule was inserted into the House’s version of the 2018 spending plan via a during a nighttime July 13 debate at the GOP-dominated House Committee on Appropriations. The jobs-for-illegals amendment was adopted because some GOP legislators joined Democrats in supporting the measure, but their identity and number remain secret because it was a voice vote, not a recorded vote.

The rule was approved in a meeting overseen by Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, who represents an upper-income GOP district in New Jersey. He has a D+ rating from the pro-American reform group, NumbersUSA. After the vote, Frelinghuysen applauded the process, saying:

Our financial system thrives on stability, and this bill provides the funding necessary for federal regulators to do their jobs in a timely and appropriate manner, while stopping burdensome regulations before they can damage our economy irreparably.

Frelinghuysen’s staffer did not respond to Breitbart News.

The rule was inserted into a portion of the appropriations bill overseen by subcommittee chairman Graves, who initially applauded the far-reaching bill. Amid a public uproar, Graves announced via Twitter that:

Graves has a B+ rating from NumbersUSA.

“What we’re focused on is getting [the jobs-for-illegals language] ripped out,” a staffer on the appropriations committee said.

The plan is to have the House Committee on Rules declare that the jobs-for-illegals amendment is possibly improper, or out of order. That decision would allow a legislator to request during floor debate in the House of Representatives that the amendment be clipped from the bill. If a majority of the House votes the amendment is improper, it will be stripped from the bill.

“We feel confident that we will be able to strip it out,” the aide said.

However, in recent weeks, a handful of liberal Republicans have joined with lockstep Democrats to defeat several important mainstream proposals about Pentagon transgender policies and counter-jihad policy. The liberal Republicans can vote with Democrats when they are not under pressure from the GOP leadership.

But if the amendment survives the floor vote in the House, it also may be removed during a conference debate between House and Senate legislators.

The jobs-for-illegals plan was proposed by a California Democrat, Rep. Pete Aguilar, who represents a mostly Hispanic district around San Bernardino.

Aguilar’s reference to “Dreamers” is not a reference to young Americans, but to the roughly 800,000 younger illegals who are already enrolled in the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” amnesty which was created in 2012 by former President Barack Obama. The number of illegals who get work permits and Social Security numbers via the DACA amnesty is expected to rise above 1.5 million unless the program is ended by judges or legislators.

The overall 2018 appropriations bill also includes some spending plans that will be applauded by conservatives, the House staffer said, adding:

The bill cuts spending by $1.284 billion, including a $149 million cut for the IRS. It also eliminates four non-essential programs, such as the Udall Foundation.

The bill includes provisions to stop the IRS from implementing an individual insurance mandate on the American people. The bill also includes a provision prohibiting government funds to pay for an abortion.

The bill changes the rule governing the semi-independent Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, and increases federal oversight of several semi-independent agencies — including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The spending plan is scheduled to be merged with the Senate’s spending plan and then signed into late by October 1.

Read more about the bill here.


%d bloggers like this: