Tea Party Organizers Educational Forum. Our Mission is to Educate & Organize.
For those subjects that just don't quite fit any of the other ones--haha
Welcome to all Visitors.--
Please note: If and when I use caps. or underscore any of my posts---
Please know that I am attempting to " emphasize " only, and am NOT HOLLERING--OK?
Please show all links or sourses of your info--Let 'er Rip. Thanks, Landel
Miami Gets On The Trump Train, Drops Sanctuary City Designation
Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
As long as they comply then there shouldn't be a problem so they had better check to make sure!! Most of the time money "talks".
Congressman Has Serious Concerns About Trump Investigation
Texas Republican Rep. Brian Babin is asking for congressmen to sign onto a letter requesting that special counsel Robert Mueller appear publicly in a congressional hearing, The Daily Caller has learned.
Mueller, who is investigating Russian election interference and possible ties between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, has come under intense criticism from allies of President Donald Trump for hiring attorneys who have donated to Democratic candidates and for his personal relationship with former FBI Director James Comey. Trump himself has called Mueller’s employment of Democratic donors “ridiculous,” yet he maintains that he has no plans to dismiss the special counsel.
Babin’s letter, which was obtained by TheDC, was sent out to congressmen Thursday and asks for members to cosign a letter he plans to send to House Judiciary chairman Bob Goodlatte and Senate Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley. (RELATED: Mueller Hires Yet Another Democratic Donor)
“Every nominee for United States Attorney must be confirmed by the Senate, a process that brings to the forefront any concerns regarding the nominee’s ability to hold their position in a decent and impartial manner. However, as Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team of lawyers investigate our very own president, we as a nation wait in the dark with very little information about those given this great authority,” Babin wrote in the letter to his fellow representatives.
Source: Daily Caller
I agree with Babin. I don't trust Mueller at all. For him to hire all the Dems that he did and then being friendly with Comey, who in my estimation should be called on the carpet for what he didn't do to the Clinton's. It is sad but there is not trust anymore in most of the FBI and what they do.
FROM A FRIEND .
I do not understand how living in a country with its republic established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called "Organizing for Action" - (OFA).
OFA - 30,000 strong working to disrupt everything that our current president is trying to do. This goes against our Democracy, it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If this is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws? If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.
It is explained below. Do your part: read it and at least pass this on so others will know what we are up against. We are losing our country and we are so compliant. We are becoming a "PERFECT TARGET" for our enemy! Article from the New York Post - If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!
The ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration's top dogs over to an organization called Organizing for Action (OFA). OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.
OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for "progressive" change. Issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform. OFA members were propped up by the ex-president's message from the shadows: "Organizing is the building block of everything great we've accomplished. Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities - and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2016 and beyond."
OFA's website says it obtained its "digital" assets from the ex-president's re-election effort and that he inspired the movement. In short, it's the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic - AMERICA
Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president "will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House." Sperry writes that the ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the incoming administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide. OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate OFA has 32,525 volunteers nationwide. The ex-president and his wife will oversee the operation from their home/ office near the White House.
Think about how this works - for example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; violence follows - all emanating from the ex-president's signal that he is heartened by the protests.
If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.
It may have been around for years but now they have Obama, Clinton and the money from Soros which makes it worse.
Grassroots conservatives are cheering on President Trump’s attacks on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), even as Republicans inside the Beltway express anger and confusion.
Trump has assailed McConnell repeatedly this week for the failure to pass legislation that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.
Republican senators have rushed to McConnell’s defense — much as they did when one of their former colleagues, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, found himself in Trump’s sights late last month.
Even some Washington voices that are normally supportive of the president, such as former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), have suggested Trump is going too far.
But it is a very different story among conservatives whose frustration with the ways of Washington propelled Trump’s rise.
“The overarching theme from coast to coast was that people wanted to take a wrecking ball to Washington and they were hopeful that Donald Trump would be elected and would be that wrecking ball,” said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, referring to the circumstances of Trump’s election last fall.
The establishment pushback on Trump’s comments, she asserted, was evidence of “just how thick the resistance is inside the swamp.”
Trump’s outsider cachet has given him significantly more popularity than McConnell among conservatives.
The Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling last month found McConnell’s job performance winning approval from only 30 percent of Republicans, while 46 percent disapproved. For Trump, 81 percent of Republicans approved and only 16 percent disapproved.
Those numbers provide an important context to this week’s jibes, with Trump taking on McConnell via Twitter and in comments to reporters.
“Can you believe that Mitch McConnell, who has screamed Repeal & Replace for 7 years, couldn't get it done,” Trump tweeted on Thursday.
Later that day, he implored McConnell, “Mitch, get back to work and put Repeal & Replace, Tax Reform & Cuts and a great Infrastructure Bill on my desk for signing. You can do it!”
As if that were not clear enough, Trump told reporters at his Bedminster, N.J., golf club that he was “very disappointed in Mitch.”
Trump’s comments prompted a number of Republicans to speak up for McConnell, including Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas.
Cornyn tweeted that passing legislation required a “team effort” and that “no one is more qualified than Mitch McConnell to lead [the] Senate in that effort.” At least eight other Republican senators had expressed some form of backing for McConnell by Friday afternoon.
Republican strategists who have been skeptical of Trump were even more pointed.
Whit Ayres, a GOP consultant who worked with Sen. Marco Rubio’s (Fla.) campaign in last year’s Republican primary, echoed Cornyn’s comments about politics being a team sport.
“No one can succeed alone,” Ayres said. “Attacking members of your own team has never been known to be an effective strategy to produce victories.”
Asked what he thought Trump’s rationale was for hitting McConnell, beyond simply expressing frustration, Ayres laughed and said, “I have no idea!”
But while Trump’s barrage has commanded the headlines, some on the right see a comment from McConnell earlier in the week as the instigating factor in the contretemps.
The Senate Majority Leader told a Rotary Club in his native Kentucky on Monday that Trump had held “excessive expectations” about how quickly major changes could be enacted. McConnell also noted that Trump had “not been in this line of work before.”
Those remarks outraged some on the right flank of the GOP.
Conservative strategist Keith Appell said that complaints about excessive expectations sit uneasily with the fact that Republicans had promised for years to get rid of ObamaCare.
In the weeks leading up to the 2014 midterm elections, Appell noted, Republican Senate candidates were running well over 10,000 TV ads per week against ObamaCare. (The figure is based on data from media analysis firm Kantar Media.)
"Trump is expressing the frustration that is felt at the grassroots,” Appell said. “This is exactly what people hate about Washington: the promises over and over to do something positive — if you just give us your money and give us your votes and give us your volunteers. Then, when they get elected, they don’t do it.”
Some Washington observers note that there is nothing particularly unusual about tensions between presidents and congressional leaders of the same party.
In those same 2014 midterms, the chief of staff to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized Obama in stark terms. David Krone in essence blamed Obama for the Democrats losing their majority. “The president’s approval rating is barely 40 percent,” Krone told The Washington Post. “What else more is there to say?”
But right now, Trump’s own inherent unpredictability perplexes both conservative and centrist Republicans alike.
They note that, right before embarking on his series of criticisms of McConnell, he endorsed Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.), whom McConnell is backing in a primary against two GOP rivals cut from more Trumpian cloth: Rep. Mo Brooks and former state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore.
John Feehery, a GOP consultant with a long track record on Capitol Hill, cited the Alabama endorsement as proof that Trump’s antagonism to McConnell could easily be overstated.
"Ultimately Trump is saying one thing and doing another,” said Feehery, who is also a columnist for The Hill. “He is saying that he is different from McConnell but he is doing the same thing as McConnell in Alabama.”
Iowa-based conservative radio host Steve Deace, who endorsed and campaigned with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in last year’s presidential primary, made a similar argument from a very different standpoint.
In taking on McConnell, Deace said, “Trump from our perspective finally found the right target. But then, in true Trumpian fashion, he undercuts his own message by endorsing McConnell’s proxy in the Alabama Senate race.”
Such moves, Deace asserted, showed that Trump’s overarching focus was not really founded on principle.
“His concern is only himself and his brand,” he said.
The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage, primarily focused on Donald Trump’s presidency.
President Trump Is Obliterating Red Tape!
Just halfway through his first year in office, President Trump is delivering on a key campaign promise to cut red tape, according to a new study.
The six-month review of Trump’s regulatory agenda by the American Action Forum shows the federal government practically slamming the brakes on regulation.
The number of new rules is now at a record low, according to the study, in sharp contrast to the start of the Obama administration.
“If you look at what’s happening in the first six months for President Trump compared to resident obuma, it’s staggering,” group president Douglas Holtz-Eakin told "Fox & Friends" on Friday.
On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump promised that “for every new regulation, we’re going to cut two,” and to “get rid of all the unnecessary regulations.”
Source: Fox News
Ray, I had to "refresh" four times before I was allowed to use "edit" for this post.
I had posted the URL address and hit "Add reply" to keep from losing it.
Then when I went to add more, I couldn't get "Edit" to open.
It sure is a lot of time consuming work just to post here.
What North Korea Calls The US Shows Just How Crazy They Are!
The barrage of words coming from Kim Jong Un's regime are getting more laughable by the day.
After President Trump reminded the North Korean government yesterday that the United States will overwhelm them with force "the world has never seen" if they go after Guam with missiles.
N.K. officials have sent back this CRAZY claim.
"We consider the U.S. no more than a lump which we can beat to a jelly any time,” the Korean Central News Agency reported Thursday.
North Korea's nuclear capabilities may be advancing, but they do not have the capability to turn the U.S. "into a jelly any time." Far from it.
President Trump issued a new response to the regime this morning and the U.S. military, which could destroy the entire country of North Korea in a number of hours, is prepared to defend Guam.
Source: Town Hall
Trump Issues Another STRONG Warning To The N.K. Dictator
North Korea's nuclear capabilities may be advancing, but they do not have the capability to turn the U.S. "into a jelly any time." Far from it.
Meanwhile, President Trump issued a new response to the regime this morning and the U.S. military, which could destroy the entire country of North Korea in a number of hours, is prepared to defend Guam.
Source: Town Hall
*** JUST THINK WHAT THE PRESIDENT COULD DO ```WITH COOPERATION! ***
Your Judicial Watch had a major court victory this week in our effort to get accountability in the obuma/clinton Benghazi scandal.
This week, D.C. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ordered the State Department “to search the state.gov e-mail accounts of huma abedin, cheryl mills, and jacob sullivan,” former aides of killary clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. Judge Mehta ordered the State Department to search in those accounts “for records responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] March 4, 2015, FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request.”
Of course, a JW FOIA lawsuit first broke open the clinton email scandal – and Benghazi, too!
Judge Mehta, an obuma appointee, described our clinton-Benghazi FOIA lawsuit as “a far cry from a typical FOIA case. Secretary clinton used a private e-mail server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as Secretary of State.”
Further, Judge Mehta ruled:
If an e-mail did not involve any state.gov user, the message would have passed through only the Secretary’s private server and, therefore, would be beyond the immediate reach of State. Because of this circumstance, unlike the ordinary case, State could not look solely to its own records systems to adequately respond to [Judicial Watch’s] demand.
The State Department has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov e-mail server. If Secretary clinton sent an e-mail about Benghazi to Abedin, Mills, or Sullivan at his or her state.gov e-mail address, or if one of them sent an e-mail to Secretary clinton using his or her state.gov account, then State’s server presumably would have captured and stored such an e-mail. Therefore, State has an obligation to search its own server for responsive records.
State has offered no assurance that the three record compilations it received [from Secretary clinton and her aides], taken together, constitute the entirety of Secretary clinton’s e-mails during the time period relevant to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request. Absent such assurance, the court is unconvinced “beyond material doubt” that a search of the state.gov accounts of Abedin, Mills and Sullivan is “unlikely to produce any marginal return.”
Accordingly, the court finds that State has not met its burden of establishing it performed an adequate search in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request and orders State to conduct a supplemental search of the state.gov e-mail accounts of Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan.
This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal – and killary clinton’s involvement in it – as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary. It is remarkable that we had to battle both the obuma and Trump administrations to break through the State Department’s Benghazi stonewall. Why are Secretary Tillerson and Attorney General Sessions wasting taxpayer dollars protecting killary clinton and the obuma administration?
Judicial Watch asked a federal court to compel the Trump State Department to undertake a thorough search of all emails of former Secretary of State killary clinton regarding the terrorist attack on Benghazi, including those of clinton’s closest advisors. We also specifically asked the court to compel the agency to produce all records of communications between clinton and top aide Jake Sullivan relating to Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” the Sunday following the 2012 Benghazi massacre.
This long journey began on May 6, 2015, when we filed a lawsuit after the State Department failed to respond to a March 4, 2015, FOIA request seeking all emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton relating to the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00692)).
This latest breakthrough made headlines and again focused public attention on the Benghazi outrage. You can see JW attorney Ramona Cotca, who was lead attorney on this case, on Fox News last night discussing the victory.
The State Department has until September 22, 2017, to update the court on the status of the supplemental search and production of additional emails to us. We’ll let you know what we find!
We have joined with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in filing an additional amici curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to convince the high court to reject the arbitrary method of drawing Wisconsin’s electoral districts adopted in Beverly R. Gill, et al. v. William Whitford, et al. (No. 16-1161).
The lower court struck down Wisconsin’s 2011 redistricting plan on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional gerrymander. We asked the high court to take up the case and overturn that ruling. We filed an earlier amici brief in this case.
Judicial Watch and AEF argued in our joint brief against the ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. That ruling relied in part on the use of a test for gerrymandering known as the “the efficiency gap,” which focuses on a purely hypothetical estimate of what each party “should” win in a “fair” election.
We point out that the test amounts, in practice, to court-ordered proportional representation, and that this will not prevent gerrymandering:
After all, it is not the case that any deviation from the strict proportional representation of voters by party is suspicious.
[P]roportional representation has nothing to do with preventing gerrymandering. Deviations from proportional representation, however defined, may occur for any number of reasons other than gerrymandering, including the political views or missteps or personal qualities of the candidates of one of the parties. The absence of proportional representation does not uniquely identify gerrymanders. In any event, proportional representation is not required by the Constitution.
There is a massive leftwing effort to oppose gerrymandering, led by Obama’s corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder. Rather than make sensible constitutional arguments regarding partisan gerrymandering, leftists want the courts to overturn district lines if not enough Democrats win. The Supreme Court will now have a chance to rule that Democrats – or any political party – will not have a constitutional right to win elections.
(The Allied Educational Foundation is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects, which include, but are not limited to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has partnered frequently with Judicial Watch to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.)
Judicial Watch Goes to Supreme Court to Protect Clean Elections
Judicial Watch is in the middle of an election integrity fight before the Supreme Court. We filed an amicus curiae brief asking the court to reverse a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which had ruled that Ohio’s process for cleaning voter rolls was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) (Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State v. Philip Randolph Institute, e... (No. 16-980)).
According to our brief, “Ohio’s Supplemental Process allows the sending of a statutory confirmation notice to any registrant who has not had any voting-related activity for two years. After that, the registrant may be removed from the rolls if there is no response or further activity for two general federal elections.” The Sixth Circuit concluded that this amounted to removing a voter for failing to vote, which is forbidden by federal law.
In our brief we noted that “the failure to vote only leads to the sending of a notice. Subsequent removal is due to the failure to respond to that notice for a period of time that may extend up to four years. The Sixth Circuit’s attempt to argue otherwise relies on a misuse of the plain language of the NVRA.”
Our amicus brief points out that the Sixth Circuit’s decision undermines a 2014 settlement agreement between Judicial Watch and Ohio, which required Ohio to contact inactive voters every year via a Supplemental Mailing to confirm they had not moved or died, as one of many steps to fulfill Ohio’s obligations under the NVRA to maintain the integrity of its voter list.
We “never would have agreed to the settlement agreement with Ohio and dismissed its lawsuit if [we] believed the Supplemental Mailing was legally impermissible. If the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in this case is allowed to stand, this key provision of the settlement agreement could be voided. This would undermine Judicial Watch’s extensive efforts to protect the integrity of elections for its Ohio members.”
We also noted how “Congress, the Justice Department and 19 states have concluded that using the failure to vote as a basis for sending confirmation notices or taking other actions to remove voters is fully consistent with the NVRA.”
There is no question about the importance of counting only the votes of eligible voters. The Supreme Court should reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and allow Ohio to continue to work toward clean and fair elections.
Our own Robert Popper, director of Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project, has also joined with five other former attorneys of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department to file an amicus curiae brief in the Husted case. In their brief, Popper and his associates argue:
First, the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of the NVRA conflicts with its text, structure, and history. Amici have long interpreted the statute oppositely, and they helped the Justice Department negotiate settlements that would be illegal under the Sixth Circuit’s view. [Emphasis added.] Second, the Sixth Circuit’s decision deprives Ohio and other jurisdictions of an important means to combat bloated voter rolls, a real and pressing threat to the integrity of federal elections.
Between this and our other Election Integrity Project efforts to force states across the nation to clean election rolls, your JW is the tip of the spear against voter fraud and for clean elections.