In plea to reverse detention ruling, Obama lawyers warn of wave of family border crossings Justice Department lawyers ask judge to reconsider her order

HIGHLIGHTS

Justice Department lawyers ask judge to reconsider her order

Claim family detention centers are now just processing centers

Argue migrants shouldn’t be released just because they can’t be processed in three days

WASHINGTON 

Federal officials have not given up yet on family detention. They warned a judge Friday that her ruling against detaining migrant mothers and children could lead to another surge of migrant families attempting to enter the country illegally if they believe their children are the key to avoiding detention.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Central California ruled last month that that the Obama administration’s family detention policy violates an 18-year-old court settlement regarding the detention of migrant children. She said the hundreds of detained parents and children should be released.

Department of Justice lawyers responded to the ruling Friday asking her to reconsider her decision. Benjamin Mizer, principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a briefing that the judge’s order had significant policy consequences. The ruling could be understood to require Homeland Security officials to release “all families” into the United States even if they have no legitimate claims to remain just because it takes the government longer than the three to five days allotted to process and remove them, he said.

“The Court’s proposed remedy – to the extent that it eliminates the Government’s ability to use expedited removal or reinstated orders of removal for families under any circumstances – could cause another notable increase in the numbers of parents choosing to cross the border with their children.” Mizer wrote.

Judge Gee’s July 24 ruling delivered a significant blow to the Obama administration’s policy of detaining mothers and children who say they’re fleeing violence in their home countries. In a 25-page ruling, Gee said she found it “astonishing” that immigration authorities had adopted a policy requiring such an expensive infrastructure without more evidence that it would be compliant with the decades old agreement.

The administration detains about 1,700 parents and children at three family detention centers in Karnes City and Dilley, Texas and in Berks County, Pa.

The facilities have been the subject of intense public and media scrutiny. There have been allegations of poor conditions and sexual abuse. But Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials say the detainees are well cared for. The facilities have playgrounds, playrooms and televisions.

The administration has responded to the scrutiny by reigning in the program, which Justice lawyers cited in their court documents.

This spring, federal officials promised to improve conditions for the detained mothers and children. In June, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced federal authorities would end long-term detentions of families. Last month, federal officials began releasing hundreds of detained mothers and children who had demonstrated they have reason to fear persecution if returned to their home countries.

Mitzer wrote that families are now staying at the center’s an average of only 20 days where federal officials conduct health screenings and determine whether family members are eligible to remain in the United States.

“Defendants are effectively transitioning the facilities into processing centers,” Mitzer wrote.

The judge noted the “reforms” in her July 24 order, but said voluntary compliance wouldn’t stop the federal government from reverting back to the violating practice later on.

Justice officials have requested that Judge Gee allow them to conduct oral arguments on Aug. 24 during a related hearing on a lawyer facing contempt charges for leaking settlement documents to McClatchy.

Email: fordonez@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @francoordonez.

Via: McClatchy

Continue Reading....

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30400701.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30400701.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30400701.html#storylink=cpy

Jobs shock: 100% of female employment gains taken by foreigners since 2007

Under Obama, all job gains among women have gone to foreign-born females. AP Photo

All of the employment gains among women since the recession hit in December 2007 have been taken by foreigners, even at a time when the numbers of U.S.-born women surged more than 600,000, according to new federal statistics.

The jobs data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed gains in the "employment level" among "foreign born women" and losses among "native born women."

The charts show that 9.041 million foreign-born women held jobs in December of 2007 compared to 10.028 million today – or a gain of roughly 1 million jobs.

In contrast, 59.322 million U.S.-born women held jobs in December of 2007 compared to 59.258 million today – or a loss of nearly 64,000 jobs.

Overall, nearly 25 million foreign workers, men and women, hold jobs inside the United States, according to a Senate immigration expert.

The shocking female jobs statistic comes as the U.S. provides some 1 million green cards to new permanent immigrants, along with 700,000 foreign workers visas, and accepts 70,000 refugees and asylum-seekers, and half a million foreign students.

And according to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., if changes to green card allotments are not changed and lowered, the U.S. will issue more green cards to new permanent immigrants over the next decade than the combined populations of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] National Right To Work President Mark Mix testifying at the U.S. House hearing “The NLRB’s Assault on Right To Work” (6/3/2015)

Help the National Right To Work Committee continue to share your voice with Congress and elected officials across the United States of America. Every contribution helps, please consider making a contribution now by clicking the “Donate to the National Right To Work Committee” button below.

Even if you do not feel like financially contributing today, you can help by signing up to become a Right To Work activist locally and nationally by clicking the “Become An Activist” button below. Then, you can use our tools to contact elected officials locally and in Washington, DC. These tools even make it simple for you to write Letters-to-the-Editor in many newspapers. We hope that you will take advantage of our activist tools.

Via: National Right to Work Committee

Continue Reading......

Behind the Fox debate: How the anchors hashed out the questions

It was clear to everyone in a windowless conference room in the basement of Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena that this would be the most incendiary question of the debate.

Megyn Kelly, flanked by Bret Baier on her right and Chris Wallace on her left, read to the assembled group of executives and producers the wording she had crafted.

Kelly said she would ask Donald Trump: "You’ve called women you don't like 'fat pigs', 'dogs', 'slobs'" and "disgusting animals", including on Twitter. Did he have the temperament to be president?

There was some discussion of whether another woman, Hillary Clinton, should be added to the question. Kelly wanted to keep the Twitter reference so people could go online and see for themselves what Trump had written over the years and that it wasn’t just about Rosie O’Donnell. She felt there was a good chance she would be booed by the audience—and that The Donald would hit back hard.

“If Trump comes after me, don’t jump in and save me,” Kelly told her co-moderators.

As it turned out, part of the audience tittered, Trump interrupted to say he was talking about Rosie, then said he was not politically correct and had always been nice to Megyn—but maybe he shouldn’t be anymore. He had parried a hard question with a series of thrusts.

Thursday night’s presidential debate was the product of a seemingly endless series of meetings involving Fox executives and the Baier-Kelly-Wallace team, which also handled the debates in 2011 and 2012. The arduous phrasing and honing of the questions was complicated by the time constraints imposed by having 10 candidates on stage.

For all the media chatter about Fox and the Republican Party, these sessions were driven by one goal: how to ask the candidates tough questions and pin them down. I saw the same meticulous process as a reporter at an Orlando debate in 2011, before I joined Fox News. The anchors barreled ahead, knowing full well that their aggressive approach in Cleveland would draw flak from some on the right.

The team spent considerable time on the wording of what would be the night’s first question: Would everyone on stage agree to endorse the winner of the Republican primaries? The discussion turned to whether that seemed like a Trump question.

“It is a Trump question,” Washington Managing Editor Bill Sammon said.

Baier would ask for a show of hands. What if Trump was the only one not to take the pledge? Then, the group decided, the “Special Report” anchor would ask a followup about how Trump could seek the GOP nod without ruling out a third-party bid. (Trump took the bait, raised his hand, and the debate made news in its opening moments.)

Wallace offered up a question for Jeb Bush, tying it to Hillary Clinton’s recent charge that he is part of the war on women. As the “Fox News Sunday” anchor described it, he would ask the former Florida governor about supporting a defunding of Planned Parenthood and his recent foot-in-mouth comment that $500 million might be too much to spend on women’s health.

Kelly also discussed a question about opposition to abortion for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who did not support making an exception if the mother’s life was at stake. Did that stance render him out of the mainstream?

With a number of hot-button issues slated for the top, there was concern in the room that some viewers, or candidates, might find that jarring. “We should forecast it, here we come with our hot stuff,” Baier suggested.

Baier tried out a question about Marco Rubio’s tax plan and whether it amounted to “trickle-down economics.” Sammon wondered whether the lengthy question could be streamlined.

Kelly's potential question for Ben Carson centered on his past misstatements, such as not knowing that the Baltic states were part of NATO. Was the surgeon too inexperienced to be president?

The thrust of these sessions was about how best to probe the candidates’ weaknesses, get them off their talking points and close off rhetorical escape routes.

But there were also mundane considerations, such as what sound would cut off the candidates after 60 seconds—a basketball buzzer was considered and rejected--and how many questions and answers, divided into what the team called “buckets,” could be squeezed in before each set of commercials. One such break would last nearly four minutes and, a staffer explained, give the 10 candidates a chance to go to the bathroom.

Kelly relished the idea: “Men are finally going to be in the same position as women are with the bathrooms—all going to the same stall.”

Although the session waded deep into the nitty-gritty, everyone in the room was acutely aware of the stakes.

Michael Clemente, Fox’s executive vice president for news, told the gathering it was “breathtaking to see how much attention” the debate was drawing. “I think it’s going to be as big as LeBron going back to Cleveland,” he said.

By yesterday afternoon, there was more banter and kibitzing to break the tension, especially on what were seen as difficult questions. Kelly said she planned to ask Ohio Gov. John Kasich about expanding Medicaid in his state by saying St. Peter at the pearly gates would ask what he did for the poor: “Why should people think you won’t use the St. Peter rationale to expand every government program?” That prompted a chorus of oooh’s.

Kelly, who famously asked Jeb Bush the question that tripped him up on the Iraq war, now planned to ask him about the families of those killed in action: “How do you now look at them and say your brother’s war was a mistake?” Another strong reaction.

Baier was torn between asking Trump one of two questions, either about his past support for single-payer health care and other liberal programs, or about his contributions to Democratic lawmakers. The room was divided as well. (He wound up asking both.)

Some of the back-and-forth turned on math. Trump and Bush were each down for seven questions, and Marco Rubio for six after a “hanging chad” recount, but Ted Cruz would have two rebuttals. Were they being careful enough in splitting up the time?

“I don’t want to be defending how some guy got shortchanged,” Sammon said.

He paused for a moment of reflection, telling the group: “I have one tiny tiny worry, in 1 percent of my brain, that it’ll be anticlimactic," that the anchors would have to "spur it along.”

An hour before airtime, Brit Hume, the Fox debate veteran who stopped by the windowless conference room, wondered if the moderators would ask about a Politico story quoting an unnamed donor as saying Bush had called Trump a "buffoon," "clown" and "asshole."

The consensus was to ask Bush if it was true, perhaps drawing a response from The Donald. But how to deal with the language issue?

"You say A-hole," Hume said.

"You can't say A-hole," Kelly responded. "You can't even say blank-hole."

The compromise was "a word that cannot be repeated on television."

On stage Bush denied the story, but called Trump’s rhetoric “divisive.” Trump, with a nod toward the moderators, said “I don’t think they like me very much.” It was anything but dull.  

"These are really good questions," tweeted Jeff Greenfield, the former ABC and CNN correspondent. "The moderators have done their homework, thought through what they want to zero in on."

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

OHIO: College Lays Off Hundreds, Blows $900k On President’s Mansion

The University of Akron, a public college in Ohio, is attracting ridicule over the revelation that it has spent lavishly to renovate its president’s house while also trying to plug a $60 million budget hole.

In an emergency effort to rapidly cut its expenses by $40 million, Akron has announced that it is eliminating 215 positions at the school. Victims of the cuts include the school’s non-profit publishing company, a big chunk of its theater staff, and its baseball team.

Scrutiny over the deep, rapid cuts has led to local press discovering that one reason for the school’s big financial hole is a massive splurge last year on the university president’s house.

According to documents obtained by the Northeast Ohio Media Group, the school spent about $950,000 renovating a house for current president Scott Scarborough, who arrived at the school late last year. The house already belonged to the school, but had received no significant work in 15 years under Scarborough’s predecessor.

While several hundred thousand dollars were spent on renovations to the heating, plumbing, and other essential parts of the house, this price tag also included a host of lavish improvements.

For example, an invoice published by The Akron Beacon-Journal found over $150,000 in spending on furnishings and decorations for the house. Purchases include several thousand-dollar chairs, five thousand-dollar kitchen stools, and an $1,800 bedroom mirror.

Most notoriously, though, the purchases include a $556 decorative olive jar, which has been swiftly singled out for ridicule by those critical of Akron’s excess. The olive jar already has its own Facebook and Twitter pages, with its “comments” including statements along the lines of “Holy shit! I cost that much?”

Akron is a public college, but has tried to defend the house spending by saying it was paid for exclusively from private donations rather than public funds. But the school also assigned a substantial number of school staff to spend hundreds of hours working on the renovation, and those staff were state employees.

Akron has had to suppress a great deal of bad publicity stemming from the layoffs, even creating a special page entitled “Just the Facts” to counter claims such “The University’s academics wallow in mediocrity” and “The University’s graduation rates are awful.”

Follow Blake on Twitter

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Defense says prosecutor steered police away from evidence Freddie Gray had history of 'crash for cash' schemes

The police detectives who investigated the death of Freddie Gray were told that he had a history of participating in "crash-for-cash" schemes — injuring himself in law enforcement settings to collect settlements — but were advised by a state prosecutor not to pursue the information, according to defense attorneys for the six officers charged in Gray's arrest and death.

Via: Baltimore Sun

Continue Reading....

UBER AND THE DEMOCRATS’ OLD WAYS

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t get it. Obama administration Labor Secretary Thomas Perez doesn’t get it. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio doesn’t seem to get it, either, as he only reluctantly reversed a bad decision on the matter.

In fact, generally, in a somewhat surprising reversal, many so-called Democratic “progressives” want to protect the old ways. But there are exceptions, like Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who worked with Uber to create a legal framework in his state; Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who says that hailing a cab has provided some of his most humiliating moments; and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), a Brooklynite who during Uber’s recent showdown with de Blasio said, in essence, “What’s wrong with a little competition?”

On the other hand, Republicans, who are accused occasionally of supporting “crony capitalism,” have embraced the new way and have been eager to let in new businesses to compete. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican presidential hopeful, gets it. One of the chapters in his recent book is titled, “Making America Safe for Uber.”

The new way is the “sharing” or “gig” economy of Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and others. Republican politicians seem more open to embracing these new businesses and new jobs, and the freedom of citizens to contract with each other.  

Spurred by unions, powerful bureaucracies, a lack of personal experience, and perhaps a more favorable view of regulation, many Democrats want to ban, restrict, and tax these services.

A politician’s position on Uber is a proxy for how in touch they are with their community. De Blasio obviously had no idea how people move around his city. And Clinton likely hasn’t driven a car in decades. What all politicians should start seeing is why it is both bad policy and bad politics to jump in aggressively and try to ban or heavily burden these services. 

It’s bad policy because the transportation services are not just for upper-class urban dwellers. In fact, as a college president recently discovered while moonlighting as an Uber driver, these services are an important alternative for the working poor with limited public transportation options. They also don’t discriminate against minorities, the way many taxi drivers do.

Meanwhile, the home-sharing phenomenon created by Airbnb brings needed cash (and sometimes a cure for loneliness) for homeowners while allowing locales to attract additional visitors.

All this economic activity adds to reportable income and benefits both the public coffers and the economy.

My personal experiences with these services are almost all positive. My brother makes his mortgage payments on his Hawaii home only thanks to Airbnb. (He pays the same local taxes as a hotel.) My family is visiting Manhattan for a few days in August, and by using Airbnb we can have a reasonably priced separate room for the kids. (Try finding a Manhattan two-bedroom hotel room for less than $1,000 a day.)

I travel a lot for business and rely on Uber. I find ride hailing service drivers better. They have clean, smoke-free cars; they don't talk on the phone while driving; and our rating of each other after the drive ensures we both are courteous and safe. It is simply better than the typical cab experience. Plus, it is great competition.

In July, I took an Uber from Denver to Aspen for $240, less than half the cost of any timely alternative. It was scenic and fun, and I connected with the driver. Compare that to my United Airlines experience for that reverse route months earlier, when I paid double what I paid Uber, plus got hit with $250 in excess-baggage fees and was told a two-day-old policy barred me from checking my bags to another airline. (Thus, I missed my connecting Delta flight.) Yes, Uber was a great substitute for United.

It’s bad politics to oppose these services as they delight millions of average Americans. Moreover, they contribute to the financial well-being of tens of thousands of Americans who rely on them for supplemental income. For 84 percent of Lyft drivers, it’s not a full-time job. Uber likely has similar numbers.  

Some “progressives” are uncomfortable and argue that these drivers and homeowners are somehow worse off without government intervention. They want regulation going beyond safety, background screening, and insurance. They want union-like regulation for home-sharing and employee-related regulations and benefits for Uber and Lyft drivers.

Talk about imposing the nanny state on consenting adults. Having taken scores of Uber or Lyft rides, I have yet to meet a driver who says they want the government determining their employment status.

So, if Democratic politicians want to dig in their heels in fealty to unions and unnecessarily burden these services, Republicans can make inroads on many traditional Democratic constituencies. I can't wait to see the platforms of both parties leading up to their conventions. I predict that Republicans will embrace the sharing economy and that Democrats will try to, but add a lot of ifs, ands, or buts.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading...

Democrats: They're All Socialists Now by LARRY ELDER

Socialism, according to Dictionary.com, is defined as: "A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, recently appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Matthews asked, "What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?"

Wasserman Schultz laughed, looked stunned, and began hemming and hawing. Matthews helpfully interjected, "I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?" Still, Wasserman Schultz refused to give him a straight answer. "The difference between -- the real question," she said, "is what's the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican."

Matthews tried again: "Yeah, but what's the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist? You're the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist."

Still, Wasserman Schultz wouldn't answer the question .

A few days ago Chuck Todd of NBC's "Meet the Press" offered her a chance for a do-over. He replayed the exchange with Matthews, then asked: "Given that (Democratic presidential candidate) Bernie Sanders is an unabashed socialist and believes in social democratic governments -- (he) likes the ones in Europe -- what is the difference? Can you explain the difference?"

And again she either could not or would not answer, and wanted to discuss the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

On the one hand, Wasserman Schultz might have refused to answer because she did not want to put her thumb on the scale of the self-described socialist candidate Bernie Sanders or the likely nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton. No matter what Wasserman Schultz would've said, it would injure one while helping the other.

That's one explanation. But the more likely explanation is simple. There is no real distinction between today's Democrats and socialists. A few years ago Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., conducted hearings in which she grilled oil executives for alleged price fixing. She threatened to nationalize their business. Did (SET ITAL) any (END ITAL) Democrat speak out against her threat? No.

Newsweek, in 2009, ran a cover story with the headline: "We Are All Socialists Now." Jon Meacham wrote:

"The U.S. government has already -- under a conservative Republican administration -- effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not -- and many, especially Congressman (Mike) Pence and (Sean) Hannity, do not -- the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state. ...

"... If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world. ...

"... This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one."

Polls, too, show that most Democrats are quite comfortable with socialism. A recent poll found 52 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion about socialism.

Bernie Sanders has always caucused with Democrats, and they are perfectly comfortable with him. He's still a long shot for the Democratic nomination, but he is rising in the polls. If there is a distinction between him and President Barack Obama on anything major, what is it? Both pushed "universal health care." Both oppose the Keystone pipeline. Both believe taxes should be raised on "rich" people. Both believe in the redistribution of income. Obama wants two years of "free" community college. Sanders wants to make college "free" altogether. Both attack "corporate greed" and both belong to the school of economics that says, "you didn't build that."

Andy Stern, then the head of the Democratic Party-supporting Service Employees International Union, said, "I think Western Europe, as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended up with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality."

That's an acceptable trade-off in today's Democratic Party.

Jack Kennedy, a tax cutter, defended his plan by arguing it would invigorate the economy. He wanted growth and said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Today's Democrat, like Wasserman Schultz, would deride Kennedy as a greedy Republican advocate of "trickle down."

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Via: GOPUSA

Continue Reading....

Obama’s Lies about Bush and Iraq

The president’s speech on the Iranian deal, delivered at American University on Wednesday, was vintage Obama, as in a compendium of demagoguery, historical revisionism and outright lying. Nothing emphasized that more forcefully than the portion of the Obama’s speech addressing the war in Iraq. Obama insisted U.S. involvement there was the result of “a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.”

That is litany of falsehoods. First, it was a complete lack of military action against a rapidly metastasizing Islamist terror threat, studiously ignored during the Clinton years, that gave Osama bin Laden the ability to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks from the terrorist sanctuary provided to al Qaeda by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. That would be the same Bill Clinton, along with numerous other Democrats, including Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore who provided ample incentive for the invasion of Iraq, characterizing Saddam Hussein and his burgeoning WMD program as a mortal threat to world peace and stability. Moreover, as David Horowitz and Ben Johnson explain in their book“Party of Defeat,” every Democrat who voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq—including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer—had access to the same National Intelligence Estimate that Bush and Republicans did.

It was a report, despite years of Democratic lying, that ultimately turned out to be correct. Twoseparate reports revealed the existence of large stocks of chemical weapons contained in the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex that was overrun by ISIS last year. And in 2008, after Democrats had campaigned for years on the slogan, “Bush Lied, people died,” the New York Times reported that “hundreds of tons of natural uranium” had been removed from Iraq’s main nuclear site and moved to Canada.

As Horowitz and Johnson explain, none of it mattered to a Democratic Party intent on undermining Bush and the war, an effort driven by pure partisan politics arising from the reality that anti-war Democrat Howard Dean vaulted to the top of the pack of Democratic presidential contenders in the 2004 campaign. Without missing a beat, presidential candidates John Edwards and John Kerry suddenly decided they were against the same war they had previously supported, and their Democrat colleagues embraced that defeatist change of heart with all the gusto they could muster. No one more so than Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. Even before the surge that turned the tide of the Iraq war decisively in America’s favor was completed, Reid declared the war to be “lost.” Less than six months later, Clinton, with an eye towards her own 2008 presidential ambitions, attacked the integrity of Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, insisting reports on that success “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

California and the GOP Debate

Looking for California in the GOP debate presented some challenges even with one candidate who has tentative ties to the Golden State and the state’s Democratic governor who tried to put himself into the debate via a letter to the candidates on climate change.

There was only one Californian (sort of) in the field of 17 — Carly Fiorina who made her name as CEO of Hewlett-Packard and was handily defeated by Barbara Boxer for the California U.S. Senate seat in 2010. She now lives in Virginia.

She did fairly well in the first debate, many pundits declaring her the winner. And it appeared that former Texas governor Rick Perry has Fiorina lined up for the Secretary of State job if he becomes president. In criticizing the Iran nuclear deal Perry said, “I’d rather have Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation rather than (Secretary of State) John Kerry.”

Major California companies Google and Apple also made it into the first debate with Fiorina saying they should cooperate with the government on investigations that might prevent terrorism.

Apparently, Jerry Brown sent his letter to the wrong recipients for the main debate. California’s Democratic governor tried to work his way into the debate when he sent a letter asking GOP candidates how they would address climate change. He should have sent his letter to the Fox News Channel debate moderators. They didn’t bother to engage the candidates on climate change in the debate featuring the 10 leading candidates.

There was a reference to climate change in the first debate held for candidates in positions 11 to 17 in the polls. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham responded that if he debated presumptive Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton on climate change she would argue cap-and-trade that would ruin the economy while he would focus on energy independence and a clean environment. Cap-and-trade is a key strategy in Brown’s camapign on climate change.

Immigration was a big issue at the debate although nothing specific to California. However, the situation on sanctuary cities was raised in both the earlier and later debates. The sanctuary cities issue gained headlines after the shooting death in San Francisco of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been deported many times but still came back. Candidates from Jeb Bush to Ted Cruz, to Bobby Jindal said they would eliminate federal funds to sanctuary cities.

There are a number of presidential candidates working with individuals with strong California ties. To name a few: Jeff Miller is campaign manager for Rick Perry, Mike Murphy is a strategist for Jeb Bush and Todd Harris is communication director for Marco Rubio.

While California didn’t have a big role in the debates one of her favorite sons was mentioned frequently –Ronald Reagan. And that will carry over with the next Republican debate scheduled for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley September 16.

Originally published of Fox and Hounds Daily

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

DHS admits new surge of illegal immigrant families

The country saw another surge of illegal immigrant families crossing the border in July, a top Homeland Security official told a federal court late Thursday as the administration begged a judge not to forbid detention of new migrant mothers and children.

Deputy Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello said the number of illegal immigrant families captured at the border rose in July, bucking a trend and worrying officials who had been expecting the number of families to drop as the heat increases in late summer, just as the number of unaccompanied minors does.

Even worse, the administration fears things may get worse if illegal immigrants hear about Judge Dolly M. Gee’s July 24 ruling all but prohibiting detention of illegal immigrant families.

---

PHOTOS: See Obama's biggest White House fails

---

Indeed, the administration warned that Central American parents may actually be enticed to bring their children on the perilous journey north, realizing that they can use their kids as shields to get themselves released from detention. That, in turn, could mean more even children being forced to make the trip up.

“Specifically, the proposed remedies could heighten the risk of another urge in illegal migration across out Southwest border by Central American families, including by incentivizing adults to bring children with them on their dangerous journey as a means to avoid detention and gain access to the interior of the United States,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer said in papers filed Thursday, just ahead of a midnight deadline.

The case is the latest test of Homeland Security, which finds itself tugged on one side by immigrant-rights advocates who protest most enforcement measures, and on the other side by congressional Republicans who demand stricter enforcement across the board.

Judge Gee last month sided with the advocates, issuing a far-reaching ruling that the government is violating a two-decade-old agreement governing how to treat illegal immigrant children. Among the problems Judge Gee identified were the fact that children traveling with their parents were held more than five days in custody, and that the detention facilities they were held in were guarded and secure, and lighted 24 hours a day.

The judge gave the administration time to argue its case, but now JudgeGee must decide whether to impose her proposed solution, which could have the effect of essentially shutting down detention of illegal immigrant families by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Mr. Vitiello said if the ICE family detention centers are shut down, it will mean illegal immigrants languish longer at Border Patrol facilities, which aren’t set up for longer-term holding, and it would distract agents from their chief job of trying to catch new border crosses.

“This would greatly impact our operational capacity and our ability to secure the borders while facilitating lawful trade and travel,” the deputy chief said in an affidavit filed with the court.

The filing was one signal that President Obama intends to fight JudgeGee’s ruling.

Immigration-rights advocates are likely to be angered by the move. In the two weeks since her initial ruling, Democratic leaders in Congress had called on the administration to comply with Judge Gee’s proposal and end detention of families.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

[OPINION] ‘Stupid politicians’ put on notice

Photo by: 

AP photo

MAIN EVENT: Republican candidates for president that made the Fox News cut for the premiere debate last night, top, greet the audience. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, above, mixed it up with Donald Trump over constitutional rights.

Here’s what we know — Donald Trump is in it for the long haul as the Republican nominee or a third-party candidate.

“Stupid politicians,” as he blasted away on the GOP debate stage last night, better get used to his brand of non-politically correct talk.

Secondly, last night’s prime-time debate was more of a coming out party for the Top 10 candidates than an attack on Hillary Clinton and President Obama. There was some arrows, but not enough. That could have been a missed opportunity. The presidential primary season closes quickly.

Overall,we got to know the candidates with some coming off better than others.

We know Marco Rubio will emphasize his appeal to the public with his working-class roots.

Jeb Bush pushed his fiscal conservatism.

Ted Cruz is very much determined to take the Republican party to the right.

Ben Carson showed himself to be the novice believing that “having a brain” is an important qualification.

Mike Huckabee spoke about the rights of the unborn.

John Kasich won’t be put on the defensive about his expansion of Medicaid, claiming it’s helping with the mentally ill and reducing prison recidivism.

Rand Paul got into it with Trump, but stressed his belief in constitutional rights.

Sure, this first debate was more a resume recitation, but that’s what you do day one. If you survive to the next round, you turn up the heat and win votes by aiming at the general election.

Frank Cohen is a political science professor at Franklin Pierce University.

Via: Boston Herald

Continue Reading....