Hungary has reached an agreement with Poland and Estonia to establish a warning mechanism against the UN Global Compact on Migration, enabling the countries to “move against such pro-migration proposals in their early phases, whether they are drawn up in the UN or in Brussels”.
Peter Szijarto, Hungary’s Foreign Minister, confirmed to Hungary’s MTI that the agreement had been reached with his Polish and Estonian counterparts, About Hungary reports.
On Monday, Szijarto said, “It has once again been made clear that pro-migration forces want to make the United Nations’ global migration compact, the world’s most dangerous migration document, mandatory.”
Last December, at the UN General Assembly, 152 countries voted in favor of the Global Migration Compact while five voted against it, 13 countries abstained, and 57 didn’t vote at all.
Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, the United States, and Israel – who all rejected the document last December – were also joined by Estonia in the most recent vote. Not one of the Visegrád countries backed the compact, with Slovakia choosing not to vote in the most recent vote.
Szijarto argued that anything approved by the United Nations essentially becomes part of international law and judicial practice. He also emphasized the need to fight “pro-migration proposals.”
The Visegrád (V4) countries have recently asserted their political will in ways that haven’t in the past. As an example, the Head of the Hungarian Prime Minister’s Office said last Thursday that Germany’s Ursula von der Leven couldn’t have been nominated as European Commission President without the support of the Visegrád countries.
President Trump has struck back at Iran for their increasingly aggressive language, by issuing “hard-hitting” financial sanctions against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his associates. Signing an Executive Order (EO) imposing the new sanctions Trump said, “Today’s action follows a series of aggressive behaviors by the Iranian regime in recent weeks including shooting down a U.S. drone,” the president said in the Oval Office, calling Khamenei “responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime.”
Trump said the sanctions “will deny the supreme leader and the supreme leader’s office and those closely affiliated with him and the office access to key financial resources and support.”
Speaking to reporters in the White House briefing room, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the sanctions “lock up literally billions of dollars more of assets.”
“Along with that action today, we are also announcing specific actions targeting those responsible for recent activities,” Mnuchin said, adding that the president has instructed him to sanction Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif “later this week.”
Executive Action and a Cyberattack Against Iran
In a news release following the signing of the EO, the Treasury Department said, “any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant financial transaction for entities designated under this Executive Order could be cut off from the U.S. financial system.”
Amid the newly announced sanctions, Fox News has confirmed that the U.S. military also carried out a cyber attack against Iran last Thursday even as the president nixed plans for airstrikes in response to the downing of an American drone.
Sources said U.S. Cyber Command launched the cyber attack targeting the Iranian intelligence and radar installations used to down the U.S. Navy drone last week.
Fox News has learned that Iran shut off some of its military radar sites around the time the U.S. was poised to launch retaliatory strikes. It’s not clear if those radar sites were turned off by the cyber attack or if Iran shut them off deliberately in anticipation of this.
A recent Supreme Court ruling could mean trouble for former Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort.
The ruling in the case of an Alabama man who pleaded guilty to a gun charge could have major implications for the unrelated white-collar case against Paul Manafort in New York — by keeping him exposed to another set of charges, even if he ultimately wins a presidential pardon.
At issue in the Alabama dispute was whether the “dual sovereignty doctrine” — which allows a person to face both state and federal charges for the same offense — violates the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled it does not.
“Although the dual-sovereignty rule is often dubbed an ‘exception’ to the double jeopardy right, it is not an exception at all,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion. “On the contrary, it follows from the text that defines that right in the first place.”
A Presidential Pardon No Longer Guarantees Freedom For Manfort
The ruling means that prosecutors in New York have free reign to continue their case against Manafort, who already has been convicted of federal crimes that include bank and tax fraud. Had the court ruled the other way in Monday’s case, Gamble v. United States, and eliminated the dual sovereignty doctrine, a pardon from President Trump would have left Manafort free and clear.
But since Presidential pardons can only be given for those convicted of Federal crimes and not state crimes, Manafort’s “get out of jail free card” is no longer guaranteed.
“No one is beyond the law in New York,” Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance said in a statement when the indictment was announced. Manafort is facing 16 counts in that indictment, including conspiracy, residential mortgage fraud, and falsifying business records. The charges are based on allegations similar to ones related to his federal convictions.
The Gamble case, meanwhile, involved a man who was first convicted of a state gun possession charge following a guilty plea, then indicted in federal court for the same possession. He pleaded guilty in that case too, only to appeal with the argument that the federal charge violated double jeopardy.
Alito explained that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple prosecutions for the same “offence,” but “an ‘offence’ is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign.” Therefore, Alito said, “where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws, and two ‘offences.'”
Alito’s opinion was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch each wrote dissenting opinions.
From the Department of Adding Insult to Injury, the Democratic leadership in California, led by Governor Gavin Newsom, has agreed to grant eligibility for the state’s Medicaid program to low-income, undocumented, illegal adults aged 19 to 25.
Effective January 2020, these foreign freeloaders will enjoy a privilege denied to many hard-working American taxpaying citizens who do not qualify for Medi-Cal.
The West Coast liberals are openly pandering to what they regard as their future voting bloc, with the expectation that these intruders will topple Republican political opponents at the next presidential election.
The 2020 California state budget is $213 billion. “Extraordinary” state budget surplus funds will be used not to help veterans or homeless Americans but to reward lawbreakers who have entered the country without bothering to become naturalized legally.
First-year costs are pegged at $98 million and give California the dubious distinction of being the first U.S. state that rewards criminal behavior by subsidizing some 90,000 illegal aliens’ healthcare expenses.
Health Access is an organization which touts itself as “California’s Health Consumer Advocacy Coalition.” This group is helping illegals get benefits reserved for the citizenry.
Liberal mouthpiece Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, commented on the new laws which give preference to folks who are gaming the political system:
“While it’s not all we sought, it will provide a real tangible difference for people, especially for those around and below poverty and for middle income families who don’t get any help under the federal law.”
Too bad those families aren’t actual Americans. Under the new rules, a four-member family earning as much as six times the federal poverty level – more than $150,000 a year – would be eligible to receive approximately $100 each and every month from the state government to lower their monthly health insurance premiums.
Even worse, the California Assembly has drafted a new bill that would cover all undocumented migrants over the age of 19 who reside in that state. This expansion of Gov. Newsome’s gift to non-citizen scofflaws, which caps Medi-Cal eligibility at age 25, is projected to cost a whopping $3.4 billion (with a ‘b’).
The California Senate likes Newsome’s proposal to cover 19-25 year-olds but also wants to tack on seniors 65 and older. In response to citizen concerns over the increased expenditure, Sen. Maria Elana Durazo brushed the issue aside, rationalizing that the state’s budget surplus has been projected to be $21.5 billion.
What’s a few billion dollars among future constituents, after all? Golden State Democrats obviously don’t give a fig about the epidemic of homelessness that is dragging their once-great state down into the status of a third-world country.
Members of the California legislature claim that more than half (1.8 million) of the 3 million residents who don’t have any health insurance live in the U.S. illegally. Almost half of those 1.8 million undocumented aliens have income low enough to qualify for Medi-Cal benefits.
As if this weren’t enough punishment for legal Californians, leadership is scheming to make them pay for the perks coming to all those undocumented residents by imposing fines on anyone who doesn’t buy a health insurance policy.
This twisted plot would perpetuate the Obama-era federal tax penalty applied to those unwilling or unable to purchase one of his “Affordable Care Act” (ACA) insurance plans. Republican legislatures under President Trump voted in 2017 to repeal that punitive federal law which targeted the very people now destined to receive special treatment in California: poor folks.
However, the big difference between the low-income citizens slated to get something for nothing in California next year and those affected by the deceitful and flawed Obamacare program is that ACA impacted legal citizens while Gov. Newsome and his Democratic cronies are helping people who shouldn’t be living in the U.S. in the first place.
GOP State Senator Jeff Stone put into words what many others are thinking about these patently unfair laws:
“We’re going to penalize the citizens of this state that have followed the rules, but we’re going to let somebody who has not followed the rules come in here and get the services for free. I just think that’s wrong.”
Bleeding-heart liberals are using all the buzzwords they can to gain sympathy for their unfair and politically biased healthcare initiative. In this statement from Cynthia Buiza, executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, note the complete absence of the word “illegal” (“undocumented” is so much easier to swallow, isn’t it?) and the use of the emotionally-loaded word “beloved:”
“For California’s immigrant communities, today’s budget deal is bittersweet. The exclusion of undocumented elders from the same healthcare their U.S. citizen neighbors are eligible for means beloved community members will suffer and die from treatable conditions. And the exclusion of many immigrants from the Earned Income Tax Credit will perpetuate the crisis of economic inequality in our state.”
If you want to talk about economic inequality, Ms. Buiza, let’s take a deep dive into why you want tax-paying citizens to pay for illegal aliens’ health insurance?
That headline may seem like something out of the 1920s, when Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was trying to rid the world of what she considered undesirable human stock – including the handicapped, mentally ill and Negros of any kind. She and her band of progressive eugenicists were pushing for abortions and forced sterilization of those they deemed unfit to propagate – and even live. If this sounds to you disturbingly like the social philosophy of Nazi Germany, you are not wrong. Sanger and her organization were in close touch with Hitler, who praised their efforts.
So, what is the deal with the headline?
Well it seems that a state senator in Ohio proposed that the new so-called “heartbeat law” limiting abortions not … repeat not … include African American women. They should continue to be aborting their offspring at record numbers.
One might assume that such a proposal would come from some white supremacist who, like Sanger, wants to reduce the number of little black babies coming into the world. That would make sense – wacko as it is. It would be consistent with the genocidal underpinning of Planned Parenthood today – which places most of their abortion operations in poor minority neighborhoods and aborts black babies disproportionate to the population demographics. While blacks represent 13 percent of the population, they account for more than 40 percent of the abortions. It is the reason that Martin Luther King’s niece, Alveda King, campaigns so vigorously against the “services” of Planned Parenthood.
Of course, such an exemption would violate the Constitution, which requires that all laws be equally applied. At least that is the general theory of it.
But hold on! The proposal to continue to abort black babies was not introduced by some old white racist. No. No. No. it was introduced by Ohio State Representative Janine Boyd – a black female Democrat. But what in God’s name could possibly motivate a black woman legislator to want to encourage the mass abortion of black children – exempting women from a law intended to protect the rights of ALL unborn human beings?
Boyd does explain her reasoning – although it does not make a lot of sense. But here it is. In urging her legislative colleagues to support her amendment, Boyd said:
“I consider the slave trade and how black slaves were once treated like cattle and put out to stud in order to create generations of more slaves. I consider the how many masters raped their slaves. I consider how many masters forced their slaves to have abortions, and I consider how many pregnant slaves self-induced abortions so that they would not contribute children they had to this slave system. … And so, I ask you, with all of your values, to consider that and vote yes to this amendment.”
She wants to allow black women to have abortions because slave owners forced them to have babies “to create generations of more slaves” and because slave owners “forced their slaves to have abortions” in order to reduce the number of black babies. Does Boyd’s reasoning suffer from a bit of inconsistency? She wants to preserve the ability of modern black women to have abortions because 150 years ago slave owners made them have babies and … made them have abortions. I just cannot get passed the head-scratching phase on that bit of reasoning.
She also notes that “pregnant slaves self-induced abortion so that they would not contribute children they had to the slave system.” Does this mean that Boyd sees today’s black women having abortions as some sort of historic tradition — some sort of cultural ritual?
I only had one college course in logic, so maybe I am missing something – but none of that seems to explain why black women should be granted an exclusive right to abort their unborn children under circumstances in which the children of white, Asian and Hispanic women are allowed to live. I would think that abortion, itself, draws a better comparison to slavery since both require the dehumanization of a person. But that’s just me.
It is interesting that Boyd’s outrageous proposal did not get very much attention from the left-wing east coast media – which is quick to give such local stories excessive national coverage if the outrageous news can be made to reflect badly on the Republicans and conservatives.
Reflecting the fact that there is still a modicum of sanity on our political process, the proposed amendment to Heartbeat Bill did not get very far. Whew!
So, there ‘tis.
It’s funny that any Democrat would think that they could present a challenge to Lindsey Graham’s South Carolina Senate seat in 2020, but I guess that is why South Carolina Democratic Party chairman, Jaime Harrison, chose to announce his bid to do so… in comic book fashion.
In a comic book-themed video posted on Facebook, Harrison highlights his humble roots in Orangeburg, S.C., and slammed Graham as “a guy who will say anything to stay in office.”
In the video announcement of his candidacy, Harrison tore at Graham’s shifting stance on President Donald Trump, whom he called a “bigot” who was “not fit to be president of the United States” when the two faced off for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Now, as you know, Graham has since been one of Trump’s most consistent defenders.
“Lindsey Graham can’t lead us in any direction because he traded his moral compass for petty political gain,” Harrison says in the video. “He’s forgotten about the people he represents.”
Who Is Jaimie Harrison?
Harrison, who was the state Democratic party’s first black chairman and served as an aide to Rep. James Clyburn, highlighted his “origin” story of being born to a teen mother, raised by his grandparents, and his education at Yale University and Georgetown Law School.
Upon hearing of his challenge to the incumbent Senator, The National Republican Senate Committee slammed Harrison as a “looney liberal.”
“Harrison is a looney liberal who was hand-picked to run by radical Washington Democrats,” NRSC spokesperson Nathan Brand told CBS News. “Lindsey Graham is one of the most popular U.S. Senators in the country because South Carolina voters know that he has delivered results and has been a tireless fighter for Palmetto State values.”
If Harrison were to somehow successfully unseat Graham, he would be the first Democrat from South Carolina to be elected to the Senate since 1998.
There are many problems associated with having a large field of presidential candidates – not the least of which is that it often results in the nomination of the most extreme – read that, unelectable – candidate.
While the 18 candidates who ran for the Republican nomination in 2016 and the 23 – and growing – Democrat candidates in for 2020, we often have a relatively large number of candidates. The only difference is that the media – and we the people – tend to ignore most of them.
In past elections, there were unwritten rules covering the handling a large field of candidates. It was to separate the wheat from the chaff – the serious contenders from those whose support does not extend beyond family and friends. If a candidate was polling below five percent, they were usually determined to be “not serious.”
Although I have never been involved in a presidential debate, as executive director of the City Club of Chicago, I negotiated several Senate, House, gubernatorial and other debates. Who would be on the stage was usually restricted by the unwritten rule of five percent. This was often the requirement of a co-sponsoring news organization. Though the rule was never officially cited, news coverage – or lack thereof – generally followed in that tradition.
On 2016, Republicans used a modified version of the rule to determine which candidates would be on the mainstage debate and which would be relegated to the separate kiddie pool event. There were some off-the-wall candidates who did not get invited to participate in either platform.
There has been a demonstrable change in terms of the long list of Democrat presidential candidates. They are taking a much more egalitarian approach. Every one of the candidates will be treated equally – well almost. The Democrats first presidential debate will take place over two nights.
The rule kept down the number of candidates because the marginal candidates – those with overblown egos – could get no traction. The news media ignored them – as did the funders. That is yet to befall those Democrat presidential candidates who languish in the less-than-one-percent polling level, but in the meantime, they are getting the treatment of serious contenders.
That is providing a huge communications benefit for the Democrats. With each of the 23 (so far) candidates getting media interviews and being invited to participate in several so-called “townhall meetings” and two-hour interviews characterized by softball questions, the Democrats anti-Trump, anti-Republican message is getting scores of hours of airtime – essentially political infomercials. In the media, it is essentially an 23 person ambush on Trump – with the media playing it to the Democrats advantage.
The two-hour appearances do not include all the pre-event promotion and post-event analysis – virtually all of which will be very positive. It was a recent townhall-as-infomercial that is supposed to restore former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke to some semblance of visibility and credibility. You will recall that he descended from being one of the most excited candidates in the early presidential field into the abyss of political irrelevancy in the Democrats game of Whack-a-Mole.
When the press and pundits wonder why some of these folks have jumped into the presidential race – with zero chance of even coming close – just look at all the exposure and publicity they are getting. For some, it may be a hope of getting noticed for a Cabinet position or even a vice presidential invitation. It is a level of recognition that they could not have possibly achieved without raising their head out of the hole – even if they eventually get whacked.
So. There ‘tis.
In a scathing letter to the Department of Justice, White House Counsel Emmet Flood, tore into Robert Mueller and his investigators, telling AG William Barr that the Special Counsel’s team included “political statements” in their Russia report and “failed” to act as traditional prosecutors — while stating President Trump reserves his right to invoke executive privilege on matters related to the report.
In the April 19 letter to the Justice Department obtained recently by Fox News, White Flood laid out a series of concerns with the Mueller report, specifically on the team’s handling of the investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice.
“The Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors,” Flood wrote, complaining that the report “suffers from an extraordinary legal defect” by failing to comply with the “requirements of governing law.”
Mueller Was Making Political Statements Instead of Doing His Job
Flood raised concerns that the team did not reach a determination on the obstruction question while still going into great detail about the probe’s findings and including a pointed passage that stated the probe did not exonerate the president. That passage read, “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Flood noted prosecutors “simply are not in the business of establishing innocence” and described these and other quotes and summaries made by Mueller in the report as “political statements.”
In the letter, which was sent the day after the redacted version of the Mueller report was made public, Flood said, “the one thing the Special Counsel’s Office, (SCO) was obligated to do is the very thing the SCO — intentionally and unapologetically — refused to do. The SCO made neither a prosecution decision nor a declination decision on the obstruction question.” Flood complained that the report was instead “laden with factual information that has never been subjected to adversarial testing or independent analysis.”
He also said Mueller “produced a prosecutorial curiosity,” describing the report as “part ‘truth commission’ report and part law school exam paper.”
Flood, also maintained in the letter that Trump’s waiving executive privilege on the report does not constitute a blanket waiver, and he still has the right to invoke such privilege.
The letter comes as a defiant White House has signaled it intends to vigorously oppose subpoenas that might run up against executive privilege, a power sanctioned by the Supreme Court that allows the president and members of the executive branch to shield certain internal communications from disclosure, absent a compelling overriding justification.
This Thursday afternoon, Facebook announced that it had banned a number of prominent figures in conservative media from all social media platforms owned by the tech giant.
InfoWars founder Alex Jones and conservative media personalities Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and Laura Loomer have all been booted from the platform. Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the black nationalist Nation of Islam movement, also was banned.
The social media company headed by CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a public announcement on Thursday that it removed the accounts, fan pages, and group pages associated with these individuals from Facebook and Instagram after reexamining their content and activities on and off these platforms.
Alex Jones and his media outfit Infowars were banned from Facebook last August but had still maintained a presence of Instagram – a social media platform that’s also owned by Facebook. On Thursday, Facebook declared that Jones and Infowars would also be removed from Instagram.
In a statement given to Fox News, Facebook said, “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.”
A few of these individuals who fell under Facebook’s guidelines against ‘dangerous’ individuals and organizations, reacted to the ban on their respective accounts during the period of time between when Facebook officially announced the ban and when they actually deleted the accounts. On her Instagram, Laura Loomer rejected the notion that she at any time had violated the company’s terms of service, and appealed for people to follow her on a different platform, adding, “Looks like you guys will probably never hear from me again.”
Yiannopoulos also published a final post on Instagram.”
Paul Joseph Watson took to Twitter – a platform which he has yet to be banned from – to write, “In an authoritarian society controlled by a handful of Silicon Valley giants, all dissent must be purged.”
Yiannopoulos also published a final post on Instagram. He mentioned that Laura Loomer was making “thinly veiled suicide threats because of the way she has been treated” and encouraged her friends to check on her.
Apparently, Facebook executives had been holding discussions as to whether they should label these individuals as ‘dangerous’ and ban Alex Jones and InfoWars for some time before actually pulling the trigger.
Business Insider obtained email correspondences between Facebook executives who argued about whether or not they should scrub these people’s accounts.
At the time these things were being discussed, a Facebook spokesperson told CNN Business, “As this email correspondence shows, we continually monitor and review whether people are involved in organized hate on our platform. We’ve already taken down InfoWars’ Facebook Page, but Alex Jones has a network of presences online and we are evaluating how to appropriately enforce our policies against him as an individual. We’re committed to being diligent and will share an update when that process has run its course.”
Following the bans, Twitter saw a burst of outrage from conservatives and moderates alike who deemed the actions as evidence of blatant censorship ahead of the U.S. 2020 elections.
If you were unaware that the annual White House Correspondents Dinner has come and gone, you are not alone. Compared to last year — when the absence of President Trump and the tasteless and humorless pillaring of the President and White House staffers made headlines for days afterward – the 2019 event was barely noticed beyond the Beltway.
This is not only as it should be, but what the Dinner had been for decades before it was taken over by Hollywood.
During my time in D.C., I had the pleasure of attending the Dinner. That was back in the late-1960s and early 1970s. It was an important political and social even for the Washington political and press communities – but it received very little reporting in the rest of the country.
While much was made of President Trump’s declining his invitation to participate, it was never a “must attend” for presidents. Some attended sometimes, but not all that often. In fact, most presidents were AWOL when it came to the dinner – although not because of the friction that has marked the relationship between Trump and the major news media.
Previous dinners were more of a private social event to allow members of the press corps and the politicians they cover to mingle in a friendly setting. There was always a bit of a comedic roast, but not with the Partisan viciousness that has arisen since the Trump election. Mostly it was good-spirited pokes at the pomposity of the press and the politicians – what is better known as self-effacing humor.
The event changed dramatically during President Obama’s administrations. He brought a glitzy Hollywood glamour not seen in Washington since President Kennedy’s days of Camelot. In fact, it is arguable that it was Hollywood that helped destroy the purpose and the reputation of the Dinner – two things the White House Correspondents Association hoped to correct this year.
Rather than make the event a platform for the biased and nasty comedy of Michelle Wolfe — last year’s featured celebrity – the Dinner sponsors chose historian and author Ron Chernow – author of the biography of Alexander Hamilton that was the inspiration for the popular Broadway production.
It was a move that would assure minimal humorous content. Chernow promised to deliver a few knee-slappers but proved that humor is an art form in which historians are relatively unskilled. The best he could elicit from the audience was an occasional round of polite chuckles.
The association took away what Hollywood had brought to the event – the iconic red carpet. Oh yeah, there was still a red runway, but it was not lined by cameras, entertainment reporters and gawkers. If there were those exaggerated poses in front of a multi-labeled advertising backdrop, not may photos of the posers to be seen in the next morning news reports – largely because there was very little reporting on the event … period.
The Association was smart in toning down the event. He had become weaponized by a biased media to attack their political adversaries – specifically President Trump, Vice President Pence, the White House Staff, the Cabinet, congressional Republicans, conservative Supreme Court Justices, FOX News, conservative icons and millions of Americans who do not share the media’s political perspective.
One can only hope that the White House press corps – and the media outlets they represent – and follow the lead of the White House Correspondents’ Association and restore a bit of unbiased civility and integrity to the profession in general.
So, there ‘tis.