Skip to content

Report: FBI Uncovers Confirmation of Hillary Clinton’s Corrupt Uranium Deal with Russia

October 20, 2017

Breitbart News

10/17/2017

Source …..

New evidence has emerged to confirm Peter Schweizer’s account in his bestselling book Clinton Cash about the corrupt tactics behind former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of Russia’s purchase of 20 percent of U.S. uranium.

John Solomon and Alison Spann report in The Hill:

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

Read the rest here.

As Breitbart News has previously reported, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one of eight agencies to review and sign off on the sale of U.S. uranium to Russia. However, the then-Secretary of State Clinton was the only agency head whose family foundation received $145 million in donations from multiple people connected to the uranium deal, as reported by the New York Times.

 

Advertisements

Trump and Obamacare

October 20, 2017

Andrew P. Napolitano

10/19/2017

Source …..

Late last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the secretaries of the treasury and health and human services to cease making payments to health care insurance companies in behalf of the more than 6 million Americans who qualify for these payments under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

Obamacare is the signature legislation of former President Barack Obama, enacted in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012. Its stated goal was to use the engine of the federal government to make health insurance available and affordable to everyone in America.

It seeks to achieve that goal by regulating the delivery of health care, giving federal bureaucrats access to everyone’s medical records, compelling everyone in America to acquire health insurance and providing financial subsidies for those people whose household incomes are below certain levels and who do not otherwise qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Under President Obama, the subsidies were regularly paid, and they had been paid under President Trump, as well, until he decided to cease paying them last week.

Here is the back story.

How is it up to the president to decide whether to spend federal dollars when the law requires him to do so? The answer to that question depends on whether Congress has authorized the specific expenditure of the tax dollars.

Under the Constitution, when Congress passes legislation that directs the president to spend federal tax dollars — or, as is likelier the case today, dollars borrowed by the federal government — Congress must appropriate funds for the expenditure. So for every federal program that spends money, Congress must first create the program — for example, building a bridge or paving an interstate highway — and then it must pass a second bill that appropriates money from the federal treasury and makes it available to the president for the purpose stated in the first law.

When Obamacare was drafted in 2009 and 2010, one of the many compromises that went into it was the gradual rollout of its provisions; different parts of the law became effective at different times. The law was enacted with all Democratic votes. No Republican member of either house of Congress voted for it, and only a handful of Democrats voted against it.

By the time the subsidy provisions took effect, the Republicans were in control of Congress, yet Obama was still in the White House. When Obama asked Congress to appropriate the funds needed to make the subsidy payments required by the Obamacare statute, Congress declined to do so. Thus, Obama — who, as the president of the United States, was charged with enforcing all federal laws — was denied the means with which to enforce the subsidy portion of his favorite legislation.

So he spent the money anyway. He directed his secretaries of the treasury and health and human services to take appropriated funds from unstated programs and to make the subsidy payments to the seven largest health insurance carriers in the United States from those funds. Of course, by doing so, he was depriving other federal programs, authorized and funded by Congress, of the monies to which they were entitled. But Obamacare was his legacy, and he was not about to let it die on the vine.

Can the president spend federal dollars, whether from tax revenue or borrowing, without an express authorization from Congress, even if he is following a law that requires the expenditures? In a word, no.

That’s because the drafters of the Constitution feared the very situation confronted by Congress and Obama in 2013 — a law that is no longer popular, is no longer supported by Congress and costs money to enforce, with a president eager to enforce it and a Congress unwilling to authorize the payments. To address this tension between a president wanting to spend federal dollars and a Congress declining to authorize him to do so, the drafters of the Constitution put the power of the purse unambiguously in the hands of Congress. The Constitution could not be clearer: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

It follows that where the appropriations have not been made by Congress, the funds may not be spent by the president. When Obama declined to recognize this constitutional truism, the House of Representatives sued the secretary of health and human services in federal court, seeking to enjoin her from making the subsidy payments, and the House won the case. The court underscored the well-recognized dual scheme of the Framers whereby two laws are required for all federal expenditures — one to tell the president on whom or on what the money should be spent and the second to authorize the actual expenditure. Without the second law — the express authorization — there can be no lawful expenditure.

President Trump, after making the same unlawful expenditures for nine months, decided last week to cease the practice. Whether he did so to bend Congress to his will on health care or he did so out of fidelity to the Constitution, he did the right thing, but he should have done it on his first day in office.

Let’s not lose sight of the whole picture here. President Obama has triumphed over President Trump and the Republicans who control Congress, because all but a handful of those who are faithful to the Constitution are behaving as if there were a constitutional obligation on the part of the federal government to provide health insurance for everyone in America. According to a plain reading of the Constitution — and even as articulated by the Supreme Court in the case that upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare — there isn’t.

 

Jeff Sessions Rips Sanctuary City Chicago: How Does It Make the City Safer When Criminal Illegal Aliens Aren’t Deported?

October 20, 2017

John Binder

10/18/2017

Source …..

Attorney General Jeff Sessions ripped the sanctuary city policies of Chicago, Illinois, in a heated exchange with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday.

Sessions, who has been an advocate for pro-American immigration reforms for decades, slammed city of Chicago officials who have implemented an immigration policy that protects criminal illegal aliens from deportation.

“I think that politicians cannot say that, if you remove a violent criminal from America that’s illegally in the country and he’s arrested by the Chicago police and put in the Chicago jail — that, once they’re released, they shouldn’t be turned over to the federal ICE officers so they can be removed from the country,” Sessions said. 

“They were here illegally, to begin with… much less commit another crime, and then should not be — how does that make the city of Chicago safer when you don’t remove… criminals who are illegally in the country?” Sessions asked Durbin. 

Durbin slammed Sessions’ efforts at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to withhold certain grant funding from sanctuary cities like Chicago. But, Sessions refuted Durbin’s claims, saying his DOJ is not asking local Chicago police to take on federal immigration roles, but rather simply notifying federal immigration enforcement officials when an illegal alien is arrested in the city. 

I do not want to not have grants go to Chicago,” Sessions said. “But we need their support.”

“When somebody’s arrested in the jail that’s due to be deported, we just simply ask that they call us, so we can come by and pick them up if they need to be removed,” Sessions explained. “That’s not happening, and we’ve got to work through it some way.” 

Last week, Sessions warned sanctuary cities across the United States that they would see their federal funding to local law enforcement cut off should they continue pro-illegal alien policies that defy federal immigration law. 

 

Removal of Confederate Monuments Costing U.S. Cities Millions

October 10, 2017

Warner Todd Huston

10/7/2017

Source …..

The costs are mounting for removing Confederate monuments in cities across America, the tab costing taxpayers millions.

A recent review of costs from just a few cities across America that began the process of removing Confederate statues from public property shows the extreme expense involved. Costs include both the actual removal costs and the police and public safety costs as cities send out police officers to keep protesters at bay while the destruction of the monuments commences.

One of the first cities to indulge the left’s desire to destroy Confederate monuments was New Orleans. Early this year, the city began the process of removing the statues but initially insisted a private citizen was footing the bill for the removal.

While some of those costs were supposed to be taken on by a citizen of the city, the city budget was also burdened with a whopping cost of $2.1 million, CNN reported in June.

The extra costs came in city employee overtime costs, police overtime costs, and fees related to the court cases that the removal of the statues forced onto the city. New Orleans even had to shell out $50,000 to build a storage facility to store the four large statues.

Fox News reported about another group of cities that incurred similar costs.

San Antonio, Texas, recently reported that it spent $258,680 to remove a Confederate statue from Travis Park. The price tag included $147,775 to tear down the monument, $103,809 for police overtime costs, and an additional $7,000 to cover landscaping costs after the statue was removed.

But that cost, some city officials said, did not include the incredible $17 million previously spent on a police presence around the statue during the months the city was contemplating the monument’s removal.

Authorities in Dallas, Texas, revealed a similar story with upwards to $450,000 spent to remove its Robert E. Lee statue.

But Dallas is also eyeing the removal of another statue situated in Pioneer Park that will cost an estimated $800,000 to remove.

Some of the costs in Dallas also include the removal of Confederate-themed street signs, with new signs featuring new names replacing them.

In Virginia, the costs to the city of Charlottesville are still not known, especially after a weekend of contentious rioting that incurred costs for policing. But before the riot that resulted in one death, the city was claiming that the removal of the statues could top $700,000.

Certainly, other cities looking to eliminate statues that in many cases have stood for nearly 100 years will see similar costs passed onto taxpayers, and the final dollar amount is growing by the month.

 

Stepping Back From the Crime Scene

October 7, 2017

Michael Swartz

10/6/2017

Source …..

Statistics on guns and gun crime can easily be manipulated for leftist ends. Let’s sort through the clutter.

As is their practice after a shooting with casualties on a mass scale, leftists are blaming the guns for the behavior of a man who obviously lost sight of the commandment, “You shall not murder.” And while we mourn the victims, the mainstream media seems preoccupied with the possibility of multiple shooters and the need to ban “bump stocks.” Many folks have also lost sight of the big picture: Statistically, we’re at far greater risk in a hospital than at a public concert like Sunday night’s Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas.

One statistician, in fact, concluded that the gun control measures being proposed would be rather ineffective in addressing the problem. Leah Libresco, who is described by The Washington Post as “a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site,” came to this realization as part of a large effort by her former employer — something FiveThirtyEight reminded us of this week — to analyze all 33,000 deaths by firearm in a particular year. She makes the case that “bump stocks,” bans on so-called “assault rifles,” and even gun buybacks would do little good when the largest portions of gun deaths involve their usage as “suicide machines” or as a method for young gangbangers to settle scores.

“But, but,” stammers the Left, “look at how little gun violence there is in Australia — a place where certain types of guns were confiscated under penalty of law two decades ago after their own mass shooting.” While it’s true that no significant mass shootings have since occurred in Australia, a 2016 study by three Australian researchers found the data was inconclusive regarding the effects of the gun buyback: “Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.”

Moreover, as Corey Iacono of the Foundation for Economic Education points out, another study that used the adjacent island nation of New Zealand — where there are fewer restrictions on guns — as a control found that both had roughly the same decline in mass shootings. “Gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all,” argues Iacono. “If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.”

He added, “A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.”

Then, when we consider this longstanding fact that more guns have yielded less crime, leftists’ case really begins to unravel. Not that they’ll stop shouting from the rooftops about it anyway — their newest cause is to repeal the Second Amendment. Our response? Molon labe.

The leftist viewpoint — shared, apparently, by the New York Times’ token “conservative,” Bret Stephens — doesn’t come close to meeting the smell test. Stephens’ anti-gun prejudices lead him to use faulty numbers, including counting five years’ worth of murder statistics to give himself a number that finally exceeds the annual toll in auto accidents. Even at this emotion-driven moment, this is all the gun-grabbers have.

Should we remind them yet again that stridently anti-gun Europe, whose elites would love to see our pesky Second Amendment consigned to the dustbin of history, suffers more mass shootings on a statistical basis than the U.S. does? Europe’s restrictions don’t allow a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with one. As we often point out, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Stephen Paddock reportedly spent about 11 minutes firing at the crowd before a security guard finally made it to his room. Local police were even further behind.

In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Congress will certainly feel pressured to “do something,” with the most likely outcome a feel-good ban on bump stocks. Even the NRA doesn’t have a problem considering that, and a Republican lawmaker already has the bill set to go.

Despite the statistics that have shown a trend toward more security, our government cannot make us perfectly safe — though armed citizens certainly have made us safer. Even if the government took away all the so-called “assault weapons,” deranged individuals bent on causing mass casualties would find a way to do so. One need look no further than the 85 people mowed down last year by a jihadi with a truck in Nice, France.

Incidents like these are a problem of evil. Instead of debating the repeal of the Second Amendment — which was, after all, placed in the Bill of Rights as a check against a tyrannical government having all the firepower — we should be discussing the lack of self-control that our culture seems to encourage. There are still many laws on the books that extend the command of “you shall not murder,” and perhaps the first order of business should be to restore a much-needed respect for life.

 

Study: 73 Percent of DACA Illegal Aliens Live in Low-Income Households

October 7, 2017

John Binder

10/6/2017

Source …..

The vast majority of illegal aliens shielded from deportation through the Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are living in low-income households.

A study by Harvard scholar Roberto Gonzales outlined by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) shows that 73 percent of illegal aliens covered by DACA are living in low-income households, qualifying for free lunch at American public high schools, as well as other federal welfare benefits.

Additionally, Gonzalez’s research found that nearly the same amount of DACA recipients who earned a four-year degree from a university, 22 percent, ended up dropping out of high school, 21 percent, leaving them without any education beyond the eighth grade. Another 20 percent of DACA recipients have no education beyond high school and do not plan to attend college.

Also, the myth from the open borders lobby and corporate interests that DACA was necessary to allow illegal aliens to legally work in the U.S. is debunked in the study, which reveals that more than half of DACA recipients, 51 percent, were already working before they obtained their temporary amnesty status.

CIS Director of Policy Jessica Vaughan said that before Congress and President Trump’s administration give amnesty to millions of eligible illegal aliens, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should review the well-being of the DACA population. Vaughn notes:

Before considering amnesty legislation, Congress needs to obtain more information about the DACA beneficiaries in order to better understand the potential impact of an amnesty, and to help determine if the eligibility criteria for an amnesty should be different from the DACA rules. USCIS has information on the communities of residence, educational levels, marital status, mode of entry to the country, criminal histories, and English proficiency of DACA applicants. This committee should request a compilation of this information for the public to review. In addition, USCIS should conduct a survey of a random sample of DACA recipients to learn more about their employment history, educational achievements, and socio-economic progress.

Currently, DACA illegal aliens hold upwards of 700,000 jobs in the U.S. As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s open borders group, FWD.us, mistakingly pointed out, by not giving amnesty to DACA recipients and simply allowing their work permits to expire, those hundreds of thousands of jobs could open up for unemployed American workers – as Breitbart Texas correctly reported.

 

DACA Allowed Illegal Alien to Work at Summer Camp Where He Allegedly Molested Child, Collected Child Porn

October 7, 2017

John Binder

10/6/2017

Source …..

An illegal alien, thanks to the Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) temporary amnesty program, was allowed to work in a children’s summer camp, where he eventually was accused of molesting a child and collecting child pornography.

Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla, a 27-year-old illegal alien DACA recipient, was noted in a Senate Judiciary Committee on DACA by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who called the case an example of the “exploitation and abuse” within the temporary amnesty program.

In 2015, Padilla was under investigation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for child exploitation, all while allowing him to keep his DACA protected status to work in the U.S. and avoid deportation.

The investigation into the illegal alien went on for months before he was permitted to work at the Walden West Science Camp for fifth and sixth graders in Saratoga, California, as CBS San Francisco reported.

Then, while known at the summer camp as “Papa Bear,” the illegal alien covered by DACA allegedly molested a 14-year-old child and collected and distributed child pornography.

Grassley said the illegal alien should have never been allowed to remain in the U.S. and work at a children’s summer camp under DACA while he was being investigated for child exploitation.

“Although considered to be ‘potentially egregious to public safety’ months before his arrest, he was nonetheless given a work permit,” Grassley said.

After the DACA recipient’s arrest on the child porn and molestation charges, the family of a 10-year-old boy at the summer camp filed a suit against the Santa Clara County Office of Education, which ran the summer camp, for failing to protect their children from the alleged pedophile.

“The fact that the county already had this rule in place is a testament to how important it is not to allow an adult to be with a child alone. In this case, that adult happened to be a pedophile,” the family’s attorney said in a 2015 statement.

The family attorney said that children at the summer camp were actually encouraged by administrators to go visit the illegal alien DACA recipient when they were not feeling good or when they were homesick.

A former official at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency, which runs the DACA program, said the fraud rate for the temporary amnesty is astronomical.

“Based on what I had seen and what I discussed with my colleagues, the fraud rate is 40 to 50 percent. It’s possible that it was higher,” the former USCIS official previously told Lifezette, as Breitbart News reported.

Since DACA’s inception, more than 2,100 DACA recipients saw their protected status revoked for being involved in gang activity or suspected/convicted of a felony. Due to a loophole in the DACA program, more than 39,000 illegal aliens have been able to obtain Green Cards and more than 1,000 have been naturalized.

 

Judicial Watch Sues Justice Department for Mueller Russian Special Counsel Budget

October 7, 2017

Judicial Watch

10/5/2017

Source …..

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning the budget and administrative records of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-02079)).

The lawsuit was filed after the Department of Justice failed to respond to an July 10, 2017 FOIA request seeking the following:

  1. A copy of the budget prepared and submitted by Robert S. Mueller III or his staff in his capacity as appointed “Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.” Temporal scope of this request is from 17May2017 to 10July2017.
  2. A copy of all guidance memoranda and communications by which the Justice Management Division will review the Special Counsel’s Office’s “Statement of Expenditures” prior to or for the purpose of making each public. Temporal scope of this request is from 1June2017 to present.
  3. A copy of each document scoping, regulating, or governing the Special Counsel’s Office appointed under the leadership of Mueller III. Temporal scope of this request is from 17May2017 to present.

On July 7, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Special counsel Mueller submitted a proposed budget to the Justice Department, “but officials declined to make the document public and committed only to releasing reports of the team’s expenditures every six months.”Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous additional FOIA lawsuits related to the surveillance, unmasking, and illegal leaking targeting President Trump and his associates during the FBI’s investigation of potential Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

“The Mueller special counsel investigation is growing with seemingly little concern about costs to the taxpayer,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Is the Justice Department hiding basic budget information about the Mueller special counsel operation because taxpayers and Congress would be outraged by the costs?  Mr. Mueller is not above the law and he shouldn’t be able to keep his budget secret.  No one else in DC seems to be providing oversight of the Mueller juggernaut, so once again it is up to the citizens group Judicial Watch is going to court to demand accountability.”

 

Refugees Resettled in U.S. from Detention Centers Known for Rape, Pedophilia

October 6, 2017

John Binder

10/5/2017

Source …..

Middle Eastern refugees accused of rape and pedophilia are among those that the United States could be resettling across American communities, as President Trump’s administration has failed to shutter the Obama-forged U.S.-Australia refugee deal.

Former President Barack Obama signed the Australian-U.S. refugee deal during his last months in office — promising to take 1,250 Middle Eastern refugees off Australia’s hands.

The refugees are being held in detention centers on Manus Island and Nauru Island and despite Trump’s original statement calling the deal “a dumb deal,” the first group of roughly 50 of the mostly male, Middle Eastern refugees are expected to be resettled in the U.S. this week, as Breitbart News reported.

But, because the deal was struck under Obama, the vetting procedures of the foreign refugees – who are actually illegal aliens in Australia – are potentially a far stretch from the “extreme vetting” for refugees that Trump promised during his presidential campaign.

Among the refugees living in the Australian detention centers where the U.S. is choosing which foreign nationals to resettle are accused rapists and sexual predators.

In January, a refugee from Sri Lanka living in the detention centers, raped an 18-year-old high school student multiple times after taking her to a nearby hotel, according to Loop. The girl tried to runaway to a relatives home, but suffered so much blood from the brutal rape that she eventually fainted.

In another case in March, law enforcement officials confirmed that a 28-year-old Pakistani from the detention center had been charged with raping a 10-year-old girl, the Guardian reported.

Just a month later, refugees from the detention center were accused of trying to lure a five-year-old boy into the facility, causing an uproar in the local community about the danger to which the foreign nationals have become to children, as News Corp Australia Network reported.

Although the Trump administration has promised to use rigorous vetting procedures, refugee resettlement expert Ann Corcoran told Breitbart News that the federal government simply relies on the personal stories of refugees, as there is limited documentation of who the individuals are and their backgrounds.

“We have no idea who these people are. We’re not calling back to Syria and asking for these peoples’ criminal record,” Corcoran said. “There’s no record to look at. They could be flat out lying, making up names. We have no clue.”

After the refugees are resettled in the U.S. in the next fiscal year, the families of those refugees will get priority migration status to either come to America as refugees as well, or come as legal immigrants through the current immigration system which is based on family chain migration.

 

California Becomes ‘Sanctuary State’ with Gov. Brown Signature

October 6, 2017

Michelle Moons

10/5/+2017

Source …..

California officially became a sanctuary state for illegal aliens on Thursday with the stroke of Gov. Jerry Brown’s pen.

Senate Bill 54 will go into effect in January 2018. Brown signed the bill entitled the “California Values Act” and released a signing statement. Brown explained what the bill does and does not do.

The bill prohibits local law enforcement from asking about immigration status in the course of routine interactions and prohibits them from complying with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests.

“The bill further directs our Attorney General to promulgate model policies for local and state health, education, labor and judiciary officials to follow when they deal with immigration matters,” wrote Brown.

“This bill does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way,” said Brown in the signing letter.

According to Brown, “The bill does not prohibit sheriffs from granting immigration authorities access to California jails to conduct routine interviews, nor does it prevent cooperation in deportation proceedings for anyone in state prison or for those in local jails for any of the hundreds of serious offenses listed in the TRUST Act.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders responded to questions about the bill during Thursday’s press briefing, “I hope that California will push back on their Governor’s, I think, irresponsible decision moving forward.”

Brown signed several other immigration-related bills into law on Thursday: AB 21, AB 291, AB 299, AB 343, AB 450, AB 699, SB 29, SB 68, SB 156, and SB 257. A statement from the Governor’s office touted Brown’s signing of legislation to fund legal services for illegal aliens “seeking naturalization and deportation defense,” to provide health coverage for illegal aliens, the “California Dream Act” and a law to provide California driver licenses to illegal aliens. Brown also signed legislation giving $30 million in financial aid and legal services to “immigrant students” and those who fall under the soon-to-be-discontinued federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

 

%d bloggers like this: