Merry Christmas
The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Are Sanctuary Cities Legal?
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
.
The Left's Arrested Development
Allyne Caan: In the wake of Donald Trump's election victory, the emotional instability many leftists have demonstrated is mind-boggling and, in some cases, downright hysterical.
We get being disappointed when your candidate loses. After all, there was plenty of disappointment — and even some fear — among Liberty-loving conservatives when Barack liar-nObama ascended to power with the promise to "fundamentally transform" the land of the free and the home of the brave. There was even more dismay when the country saw what liar-Obama had done ... and re-elected him anyway.
But we didn't ditch dating, chop off our hair, or lose our faith because of it. Clearly, "progressives" are outdoing us in their post-election mourning.
So great was the grief of Trump's win for single mom Stephanie Land, for example, that she gave up dating. And not just in theory. She actually ditched a man who was a potentially promising husband. "There is no room for dating in this place of grief," Land wrote in the Washington Post. "I've lost the desire to attempt the courtship phase. The future is uncertain. I am not the optimistic person I was on the morning of Nov. 8. ... Dating means hope. I've lost that hope in seeing the words 'President-elect Trump.'" And so, Land told her almost-significant other, "I can't. I just can't". (Despite her emotional dependency on liar-Hillary Clinton, Land apparently didn't embrace liar-Clinton's mantra that we are "stronger together.")
Then, there is hair. And no, not Trump's. New York magazine details the "post-Trump haircut." One client at the Georgetown Salon & Spa told her stylist, "Think of Melania Trump and go in the opposite direction. I don't want to be that person people see as sexual, I want to be seen as strong." Meanwhile, marketing director Julianna Evans had colored her hair the same shade for years, but when "president-elect" was prefixed to Trump's name, she "cried for three days." Then, she did the unthinkable. Instead of using medium-brown coloring, she went for natural black! "The election deadened my soul," she said. "I think I wanted to do something defiant to feel stronger." Because in the age of gender equality and breaking glass ceilings, we women find our greatest strength in our hair color.
The strong, feminist women aren't alone in their despondency. Benjamin Ryan writes in the Huffington Post that he learned of Trump's victory "while midstream in providing a urine sample for the emergency psychiatric staff of a New York City public hospital" where he had checked himself in after the results from battleground states started coming in. Ryan was eventually sent home and told, "You don't belong here," yet he characterized himself as having suffered "a genuine mental health crisis." Notably, he is a self-described Ivy League graduate. Those bastions of reasoned discourse sure prepare folks for the real world.
Haircuts, dating and safe spaces are one thing, but losing your religious affiliation? That's what Trump's win supposedly did to Brandi Miller. As the Wall Street Journal reports, after the election, Miller wrote on Facebook, "On Nov. 8, white evangelical Christianity and I called it quits." She noted that as a biracial woman, she couldn't condone the racial divide highlighted by exit polling showing 81% of white evangelicals backed Trump. "Evangelicals have decided who and with what they will associate. It's not me." Miller still calls herself a Christian, but not evangelical.
At least one person is taking an ever so slightly more reasoned approach to the loss — which isn't saying much. Instead of peeing in a psychiatric ward, journalist Mark Weston is calling for mass tax evasion if a Republican ever again wins the presidency without winning the popular vote. Give us the president we want or else we... we... we... won't pay taxes! He waves the banner of "no taxation without representation" because, you know, the inability to handle disappointment is on par with pledging one's life, fortune, and sacred honor. And note the hypocrisy of crying that Trump didn't pay taxes, only to turn around and promise not to pay taxes.
Aside from leftists displaying the maturity level of a five-year-old, the irony of all this is that regardless of how much the Left may hate Trump and Republicans, the latter aren't the ones trying to micromanage everyone's lives. While under the next administration liberals may lose their supposed right not to get offended and their ability to try to control everything, they won't lose their Liberty or true rights. What's worse, they may even be forced to endure hearing opinions different from their own.
And for liar-Hillary-worshipping, glass-ceiling-breaking damsels in distress everywhere — and for the metrosexual males too traumatized to rescue them — living through such hardship may require not just a new hair color but also a full mani-pedi. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
liar-nObama’s/Soros-funded
Pro-Dope Policy in Peril
by Cliff Kincaid
{aim.org} ~ It is part of the liar-nObama legacy: more drugs, more psychotic behavior, and therefore more violence... Deranged potheads, some of them Islamists, are killing people in a series of violent and terrorist incidents on American soil. In a recent case in Massachusetts, 15-year-old Mathew Borges has been charged with first-degree murder in the decapitation death of a classmate. But you have to read deep into the articles about the case to discover a motive. Police said he told them that he and his victim, Lee Manuel Viloria-Paulino, went away together to “smoke marijuana.”... http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-soros-funded-pro-dope-policy-in-peril/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=email120616&utm_medium=email
.
Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World
by Norman A. Stillman
by Norman A. Stillman
{danielpipes.org} ~ If Jews in Muslim-majority countries have shrunk to a miniscule 50,000 souls, nearly all of them in Morocco, Turkey, and Iran, things were once different... Indeed, until the seventeenth century Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews outnumbered the Jews of Europe. More than that, as Stillman writes in his introduction, it was in the medieval Muslim world that "many aspects of Judaism as a religious civilization were formulated, codified, and disseminated, and this includes the domains of liturgy, law, and theology." But if the Mizrahi/Sephardi population has great importance for Judaism and for the Middle East, scholars have slighted it. Again, quoting Stillman:... http://www.danielpipes.org/17099/encyclopedia-of-jews-in-the-islamic-world?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=f07280a687-PIPES_REVIEW_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-f07280a687-33703665&goal=0_086cfd423c-f07280a687-33703665
.
After Repeal
by Michael Warren
by Michael Warren
{weeklystandard.com} ~ It’s the opportunity Republicans have been awaiting for six years, which invites the obvious question: Are they going to screw it up? In January, a united Republican Congress and Republican White House will finally have the ability to dispose of liar-nObamacare... the unpopular and destructive health-insurance law. After running four straight national elections against the jammed-through, unconstitutional, failing, expensive, and disastrous Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the GOP finally has the power to do something about it. It didn't take long for Republican leadership in both houses of Congress to get over the shock of winning the election last month and start gaming out a repeal plan. The details remain under discussion, but House speaker Paul Ryan, Senate majority leader Mitch McCon-nell, and Vice President-elect Mike Pence who is working closely with Ryan and McConnell on repeal are already coalescing around a rough legislative framework...
.
Podesta Pizza Gate Emails Go Beyond
liar-Clintons, To liar-nObama White House
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ David Seaman was fired from the liberal Huffington Post for writing the truth, having dared to question the anointed one, liar-Hillary Clinton’s health. He has a few noteworthy observations on PIzzaGate... the possible pedophile ring exposed by WikiLeaks in Podesta emails and elsewhere. He observes that Dan Pfeiffer, a VP of Communications and Policy for GoFundMe and a former Senior Adviser to Hussein liar-nObama who is also a current CNN contributor, sent out a tweet promoting a crowd funding campaign for Comet Pizza. Seaman recognizes an odd public relations campaign when he sees one. At a minimum the level of engagement, the sentiment and behavioral evidence indicates that there is just too much involvement by rich and powerful people in defending and covering up for what they would have us believe is just a simple pizza parlor that has been falsely accused. Seaman believes it is a diversion and, although Comet Pizza is likely involved in some very despicable actions, the focus should be directed towards John Podesta. His emails involved the use of terms that are known to be code for pedophilia, such as pizza and cheese pizza, used in a manner that is clearly not associated with an actual food product...
.
Herridge – Johnson Has No Clue How DHS
IP Linked To Georgia State Hack
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Homeland “Security” is a rogue outlaw agency engaged in the non-stop daily flouting of our laws, most visibly but not restricted to our immigration laws... Against that backdrop of experience, particularly since Jihadi Jeh Johnson has taken over as director, we’re being told to abandon all reason and to simply take them at their word. They weren’t really caught hacking into the Georgia election system computers, forget that it was traced to their IP address. Just dismiss the evidence out of hand based upon their word. It was a “false positive.” It’s almost surprising that Johnson didn’t tell us Putin had sneaked into a cubicle at DHS and hacked his way in. Maybe Fox is just reporting some more of that “fake news.” Has Catherine Herridge gone over to the dark side of anti-globalist fake news? She reports that, while the federal government is still working to get the election systems designated as critical infrastructure, we’re being assured that it won’t involve the feds compromising our systems...
..
Are Sanctuary Cities Legal?
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Last week, President-elect Donald Trump re-emphasized the approach he will take in enforcing the nation's immigration laws, which is much different from the manner of enforcement utilized by President Barack liar-nObama. The latter pointedly declined to deport the 5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who are the parents of children born here -- children who, by virtue of birth, are American citizens. Trump has made known his intention to deport all undocumented people, irrespective of family relationships, starting with those who have committed crimes.
In response to Trump's stated intentions, many cities -- including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco -- have offered sanctuary to those whose presence has been jeopardized by the president-elect's plan. Can they do this?
Here is the back story.
Under the Constitution, the president is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land. Though the president's job is to enforce all federal laws, as a practical matter, the federal government lacks the resources to do that. As well, the president is vested with what is known as prosecutorial discretion. That enables him to place priority on the enforcement of certain federal laws and put the enforcement of others on the back burner.
Over time -- and with more than 4,000 criminal laws in the United States Code -- Congress and the courts have simply deferred to the president and permitted him to enforce what he wants and not enforce what he doesn't want. Until now.
Earlier this year, two federal courts enjoined President liar-nObama -- and the Supreme Court, in a tie vote, declined to interfere with those injunctions -- from establishing a formal program whereby undocumented people who are the parents of natural-born citizens may lawfully remain here. It is one thing, the courts ruled, for the president to prioritize federal law enforcement; it is quite another for him to attempt to rewrite the laws and put them at odds with what Congress has written. It is one thing for the president, for humanitarian reasons or because of a lack of resources, to look the other way in the face of unenforced federal law. It is another for him to claim that by doing so, he may constitutionally change federal law.
Trump brilliantly seized upon this -- and the electorate's general below-the-radar-screen disenchantment with it -- during his successful presidential campaign by promising to deport all 13 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States, though he later reduced that promise so as to cover only the 2 million among them who have been convicted in the United States of violating state or federal laws.
Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds -- or at least not aggressively resisting them.
Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.
The term "sanctuary cities" is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them -- including the case of Chicago's offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.
Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states -- and thus the municipalities in them -- to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.
The high court has also prohibited the federal government from "commandeering" the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.
If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.
Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor. He cannot use a stick to bend the governments of sanctuary cities to his will, but he can use a carrot. He can ask Congress for legislative grants of funds to cities conditioned upon their compliance with certain federal immigration laws.
All of this is part of our constitutional republic. By dividing powers between the feds and the states -- and by separating federal powers among the president, Congress and the courts -- our system intentionally makes the exercise of governmental power cumbersome by diffusing it. And since government is essentially the negation of freedom, the diffusion of governmental powers helps to maximize personal liberty.
In response to Trump's stated intentions, many cities -- including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco -- have offered sanctuary to those whose presence has been jeopardized by the president-elect's plan. Can they do this?
Here is the back story.
Under the Constitution, the president is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land. Though the president's job is to enforce all federal laws, as a practical matter, the federal government lacks the resources to do that. As well, the president is vested with what is known as prosecutorial discretion. That enables him to place priority on the enforcement of certain federal laws and put the enforcement of others on the back burner.
Over time -- and with more than 4,000 criminal laws in the United States Code -- Congress and the courts have simply deferred to the president and permitted him to enforce what he wants and not enforce what he doesn't want. Until now.
Earlier this year, two federal courts enjoined President liar-nObama -- and the Supreme Court, in a tie vote, declined to interfere with those injunctions -- from establishing a formal program whereby undocumented people who are the parents of natural-born citizens may lawfully remain here. It is one thing, the courts ruled, for the president to prioritize federal law enforcement; it is quite another for him to attempt to rewrite the laws and put them at odds with what Congress has written. It is one thing for the president, for humanitarian reasons or because of a lack of resources, to look the other way in the face of unenforced federal law. It is another for him to claim that by doing so, he may constitutionally change federal law.
Trump brilliantly seized upon this -- and the electorate's general below-the-radar-screen disenchantment with it -- during his successful presidential campaign by promising to deport all 13 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States, though he later reduced that promise so as to cover only the 2 million among them who have been convicted in the United States of violating state or federal laws.
Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds -- or at least not aggressively resisting them.
Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.
The term "sanctuary cities" is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them -- including the case of Chicago's offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.
Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states -- and thus the municipalities in them -- to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.
The high court has also prohibited the federal government from "commandeering" the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.
If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.
Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor. He cannot use a stick to bend the governments of sanctuary cities to his will, but he can use a carrot. He can ask Congress for legislative grants of funds to cities conditioned upon their compliance with certain federal immigration laws.
All of this is part of our constitutional republic. By dividing powers between the feds and the states -- and by separating federal powers among the president, Congress and the courts -- our system intentionally makes the exercise of governmental power cumbersome by diffusing it. And since government is essentially the negation of freedom, the diffusion of governmental powers helps to maximize personal liberty.
Comments