PRESIDENT’S FIRST ADDRESS TO DO-NOTHING CONGRESS… Dems to Troll During Speech; Streep Invited…

capture

By Emily Zanotti

Although President Donald Trump won’t be giving a formal State of the Union address Tuesday night (he’s only been in office a month), Democrats are still planning on making his address to a joint session of Congress as uncomfortable as possible.

Each legislator is allowed a handful of tickets for the public gallery, so that interested constituents and guests can be present for what is typically the President’s most important speech of the year. Most often, those tickets go to hometown heroes from the legislator’s respective districts, people who have made the news over the past year, or those who have benefitted from the administration’s policy agenda.

But the power can also be used for evil: Legislators have been known to pass off their tickets to protesters—including perennial anti-war activists Code Pink—or to special interest groups opposed to key items in the speech.

This year, Democrats will be using their tickets as part of an organized effort to invite the families of illegal immigrants, DREAMers protected by former President Obama’s executive orders on immigration, and Muslim-Americans they claim will be harmed by Trump’s temporary travel ban. (A court has stayed Trump’s travel ban.)

Rep. Nydia Velázquez from New York is inviting an Iraqi man who served American troops as a translator, and who was detained for several hours when the travel ban went into effect.  Rep. Jim Langevin will invite a Muslim-American born in Pakistan whom he says represents the idea that “patriotism” is not the sole purview of Trump voters.

Since it would be hard to actually find an illegal immigrant willing to walk into the United States Capitol, Dems will instead bring several people helped by the DREAM act (which Trump says he won’t undo), and the family of a woman slated for deportation back to her home country of Mexico during a routine check-in with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials.

Sources in one Democratic Congressional office tell Heat Street an invitation was even extended to Meryl Streep, but it’s not clear how serious the invitation was (or whether it was even received).

In case you aren’t sure who is who, Langevin also intends to hold a press conference before the joint session, just to introduce media and viewers to the people on his subversive guest list. He expects 10 to 15 of his colleagues to participate.

Chicago Ends February Well Ahead of Violence Over Last Year with Another Four Dead, 10 Wounded

By Warner Todd Huston

The last weekend in February ended with another four killed and 10 wounded in Chicago. The tally puts the death toll well ahead of the end of the second month last year.

Over a chilly 48-hours, Chicago again had several incidents with multiple shooting victims per attack with one of those incidents ending with two killed.

Two men were killed early on Saturday morning during an incident in the city’s Woodlawn neighborhood. At about 1 AM two men in hoodies opened fire on a group of people attending a house party in the 6500 block of South Drexel. A 20-year-old man took a slug to the head and a 37-year-old man was hit in the chest. Both died soon after, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

A list of others wounded during the weekend includes a 15-year-old girl shot in the backside. She is in stable condition.

Thus far this year Chicago has already seen 98 people shot and killed with a total of 512 shot. Another five murders by other means brings the total killed in Chicago to 103.

Even as February, being one of the coldest months in Chicago, usually has one of the lower shooting tallies, the number of victims and deaths wracked up in the Windy City has already exceeded that of 2016, a year that ended with more shootings than any year in decades.

By the end of February last year 189 had been shot in Chicago compared to this year’s 201 total shooting victims. With 72 shot in 2014 and 75 shot in 2015, that is a 152 percent rise year over year.

La Raza in WaPo: Trump Immigration Orders Like ‘Slave Trade’

By John Binder

The president of the open borders group known as La Raza is comparing President Donald Trump’s immigration orders to a number of historic atrocities, including the slave trade, in a new Washington Postop-ed.

The piece by National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguía, claims Trump’s plan to deport criminal illegal immigrants; build a wall along the southern border; and crack down on sanctuary cities will “similarly tarnish our nation’s character” like the slave trade did:

Some of the darkest chapters in U.S. history have involved forcibly relocating minority populations: the slave trade, the Trail of Tears, Operation Wetback and the internment of citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Each was considered legal and justified in its time. Now they are condemned as assaults on the values that define our nation.

President Trump’s first executive order on immigration and the draft enforcement memos signed by Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly promise to similarly tarnish our nation’s character. The memos call for expanding the nation’s deportation forces by 15,000 to round up, detain and deport the undocumented immigrants living among us. Instead of focusing on criminals, they make all undocumented people priorities for enforcement, and through a process called “expedited removal,” they severely reduce due process protections.

Murguía says Trump’s immigration orders through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are based entirely “on falsehoods” about illegal aliens, arguing that illegal immigration is down and it does not pose as much of a threat as the Trump Administration purports.

The La Raza president also parroted the talking points that illegal aliens help grow the economy by paying taxes every year:

And the cost of the undocumented? Their contributions to the economy far outweigh their burden. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants pay $11.6 billion in taxes each year. According to the Social Security Administration, undocumented workers contribute $15 billion annually to the fund, but only withdraw an estimated $1 billion.

This claim has been repeatedly debunked by groups like the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), which found in a comprehensive study that illegal immigration costs American taxpayers a whopping $113 billion, as Breitbart Texas reported.

Murguía also claims that there is “little evidence that most undocumented immigrants pose a threat to national security.”

But, in documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest back in 2016, research found that there have been 580 individuals convicted of terrorism in the U.S. since the September 11th attacks, with 380 of those individuals being foreign-born terrorists, as Breitbart News reported.

Murguía refers to the recent deportation of Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, an illegal immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, with her two children for 20 years.

“A woman who was a resident of Phoenix for 20 years was also deported, leaving behind her two U.S.-citizen children,” Murguía writes in the piece. “They are hardly security threats, but will be ‘enforcement priorities’ under Homeland Security’s new policy.”

Nonetheless, Murguía did not mention that Garcia de Rayos had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2008 after she was found to be illegally using a Social Security number to work at a theme park, as Breitbart Texas reported.

In 2013, a judge ordered Garcia de Rayos to return home to Mexico, but she instead was required to periodically meet with immigration officials due to lax enforcement policies under former President Obama.

Murguía goes on to claim that the Trump administration has “declared war”, referring to ICE’s efforts to deport criminal illegal immigrants as “stalking people leaving church or going to the movies.”

Murguía’s piece concludes with a plea for the rest of the open borders lobby and amnesty advocates to continue to try to hold up deportation processes by the Trump Administration, writing “we’re deploying every tool we’ve got to oppose this ill-conceived policy — in the media, in the courts and in peaceful protests in the streets.”

Supports Abolishing Second Amendment – DNC Deputy Ellison Caught Lying

 

capture

By Rick Wells

The automatic default for black racists like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Rep Keith Ellison (D-MN) when they’re caught in a lie is to first deny and then claim that they were taken out of context. That’s the technique that was utilized by Ellison, now the DNC deputy chairman, in their Wednesday night debate.

Ellison is asked by a friendly CNN moderator, Dana Bash, about comments he made on the topic of gun control. She reads, “In 2014 you told Bill Maher that you wished the Democrat Party would come out against the Second Amendment. How do you reach out to Americans who support gun rights when you don’t support the Second Amendment?” For some unknown reason Ellison gets a goofy grin on his face before she even completes the question and attempts to start his false answer early.

He says, “First of all let me tell you, and I remember that show very well and that is not what I said at all.” Pay attention folks, this is what Ellison looks like when he’s telling a bald-faced lie. He continues, “What I talked about is my grandfather’s shotgun, the fact that I am a turkey hunter, and I didn’t say that. That was not an accurate statement.”

He then switches to a dissertation on how bad the employment picture is following 8 years of Democrat rule and some backtracking under the guise of a claim that “guns do need” the background checks that are already required and that nobody cares about murders. He’s no Hillary Clinton or Hussein Obama when it comes to lying and slipping free, Dana Bash proceeds to read the transcript from the Maher program, apparently expecting the lying Democrat might deny having said what he did.

Bill Maher said, “Then why doesn’t your party come out against the Second Amendment? It’s the problem.” Ellison responded, “I sure wish they would, I sure wish they would.” He then goes on to tell her he’s for the right to bear arms but is taking the politically risky position of being against the mass murders that happen every day, citing two examples that hardly qualifies as every day. He proclaims that he’s for “common sense” gun safety laws and he’ll decide who confiscates what from whom and who isn’t allowed to own what.

When one of the other panelists challenges him on that claim being based upon his not using the right words, he claims a right to not be taken out of context.

As the short clip below shows, nothing was taken out of context. He said he wishes that Democrats would attack the Second Amendment because he does, it’s how they take over the country. They need to disarm the people to enslave us. Ellison is lying about that as well.

Above the lie is proven by video tape of the statement on the Bill Maher program.

Below is the full exchange from the debate.

“Palestinian” MUSLIM STUDENT LEADER at UK Exeter university declares she’s ‘proud to be a TERRORIST’

By Pamela Geller

The deep pride devout Muslims take in their hatred and blood-lust is eerily similar to the fervor of adherents of the Third Reich.

In a a rational age, this bloody seditionist would be thrown out of the country. But in the Islamic state of the UK, she’ll just as easily get elected Mayor of London on this platform.

PALESTINIAN STUDENT AT UK UNIVERSITY PROBED FOR DECLARING SHE’S ‘PROUD TO BE A TERRORIST’

EXETER University has launched a fresh probe into allegations of antisemitism after a Palestinian student tweeted she was PROUD to be called a terrorist.

By Belinda Robinson, The Express, February 28,2017:

Malaka Shwaikh prompted a probe over her remarks on being proud to be a terrorist

The Student’s Guild at the University of Exeter is investigating statements made by Malaka Shwaikh – who was recently elected as its vice-president representing post-graduates.

Miss Shwaikh, 25, has sparked controversy after she previously tweeted Zionism ideology is “no different to that of Hitler’s” and “Hitler did his deed and the Palestinians had to pay for it”.

Several days after her election, Miss Schwaik’s Twitter account was no longer available.

But the Jewish News has now published an image of a further tweet from her which read: “If terrorism means protecting and defending my land, I am so proud to be called terrorist.

“What an honour for the Palestinians!”Her comments follow an investigation at the same university just two weeks ago after a swastika and racist slogan were scrawled in student hall.And in September students were seen wearing T-shirts with racist and anti-Semitic slogans at a sports club social event.There is no suggestion Ms Shwaikh is connected to the incidents or has endorsed them.Exeter University said antisemitism was not tolerated and the students’ guild has launched an immediate investigation into the reports.

Tweet and Malaka Shwaikh

Charity Campaign Against Antisemitism claimed that she tweeted antisemetic views

The Campaign Against Antisemitism Twitter account also posted a video of Miss Shwaikh making a speech at a March Against Facism on the university campus.In the video, she says she is a Palestinian and had lost 66 members of her family in 2014 in one day from Israeli Army action.She said: “You are dealing with a woman who will never, ever feel weak in front of Islamophobic attacks.”I will resist. We will resist. I will continue the fight for freedom, justice, equality of my people in Palestine.”The university’s vice-chancellor Sir Steve Smith issued a statement saying acts of anti-Semitism would not be tolerated.

He said the university was committed to eradicating any form of discrimination or harassment.

A spokesman for the university said: “Exeter University has an unwavering commitment to tolerance, respect and inclusivity.

“These qualities are at the very heart of who we are and what we both expect and demand of everyone associated with Exeter.

“Our staff and students work tirelessly to ensure everyone feels welcomed, encouraged, supported and embraced, no matter their background, religion or nationality.”Anti-semitism is not tolerated. Even one incident of discrimination, racism, or harassment is one too many.”The Students’ Guild, Exeter University’s student representative body, is responsible for the election of student representatives. It has launched a thorough investigation.”The guild added: “We are committed to exploring the allegations of anti-Semitism with a thorough investigation.”Guild president Toby Gladwin added in a further statement the body was a passionate opponent of antisemitism and he was horrified by recent reports.

EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA ILLEGALLY ROBBED FANNIE, FREDDIE TO FUND OBAMACARE

capture

Obama diverted money from low-income housing to keep Obamacare alive

Jerome R. Corsi | Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 27, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Will this be the final nail in the coffin for the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare?”

Federal court litigation provides evidence the Obama administration illegally diverted taxpayer funds that had not been appropriated by Congress in an unconstitutional scheme to keep Obamacare from imploding.

In 2016, a U.S. District judge caught the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department acting unconstitutionally and therefore put an end to the illegal diversion of taxpayer funds, but the Obama administration didn’t stop there.

capture

The Obama administration instead turned to the nation’s two government-sponsored mortgage giants – the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac” – to invent a new diversion of funds in a desperate attempt to keep Obamacare from collapsing.

A key date is May 12, 2016. That was the day when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

Judge Collyer decided HHS Secretary Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund Obamacare subsidy payments to insurers under another section of the ACA, Section 1402 – the clause defining the insurer subsidies – when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.

“Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” Judge Collyer concluded. “Congress authorized reduced cost sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or since.”

“Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”

The U.S. District court in this ruling entered judgment in favor of the House of Representatives, barring HHS from using unappropriated money to pay insurers under Section 1402.

What was at issue in Section 1402 was the Obamacare provision that capped the amount of federal subsidies under Section 1402 that lower-income families could use to pay for insurance purchased on state insurance exchanges, particularly the difference between the capped maximum based on a person or family’s income in relation to the federal poverty level.

Congress had refused to pass an appropriation to fund Section 1402 – the section of the ACA that called for making the insurance subsidy payments.

In a report issued in March 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost for providing Section 1402 subsidies over the next ten years (2016-2026) was estimated to be $130 billion.

Forbidden by Judge Collyer’s decision from diverting money Congress appropriated for other ACA provisions to pay Section 1402 subsidies, the Obama administration faced the prospect that the government could not pay subsidies to permit lower-income persons and families to buy the amount of health insurance Obamacare was written to provide them.

Either this, or insurers would be forced to charge middle and high income-persons and families such outrageous amounts for their insurance coverage (to subsidize the poor under ACA) that only the wealthiest could afford to buy health insurance.

In other words, Obamacare was dead in the water if the Obama administration could not find a way to circumvent the District Court’s decision U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell to fund Section 1402 despite the fact Congress had refused to do so.

Determined to keep Obamacare alive, the Obama administration decided to find a way around Judge Collyer’s ruling.

The fix involved the Obama administration redefining the terms of the 2008 conservatorship agreements which advanced funds to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from a 10% dividend on moneys borrowed to the federal government’s confiscation of 100% of the future and imminent profits of these Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

Miraculously, the Freddie and Fannie “pot of gold” turned out to be almost exactly the amount the Obama administration needed to meet the anticipated insurance company subsidies required to keep Section 1402 in business.

So, how did Fannie and Freddie get this pot of gold, given that only a few years earlier both GSEs were bankrupt?

In 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis caused in part by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, the federal government decided to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at the time were two shareholder-owned companies.

In passing the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), the U.S. Congress had fixed the regulatory issues at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, creating a mechanism for them to be placed into conservatorship at federal government’s discretion AND providing up to $187.5 billion in funds that could be advanced to the GSEs through a purchase of senior preferred stock paying a ten percent dividend.

In deciding to bail them out, the federal government took control of the two giant mortgage GSEs, with Fannie and Freddie effectively put into government “conservatorship.”

As part of the conservatorship, the federal government effectively acquired warrants, convertible at a nominal price, which allowed the federal government to acquire 79% of the GSE’s common stock.

This resulted in causing dilution in the percentage of Fannie and Freddie common stock ownership that was left in the hands of private and institutional investors.

Congress’ intent was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay back the Treasury as the mortgage giants returned to profitability.

But after the Treasury was paid back, the terms of HERA anticipated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay appropriate dividends to stockholders, including the federal government, leaving enough funds within Freddie and Fannie to “conserve and preserve” the assets of the two GSEs, anticipating their eventual return to a “safe and solvent” operating condition.

In 2012, the Obama administration unilaterally decided to change the terms of HERA by sweeping all the profits of Fannie and Freddie into the Treasury’s general fund.

The Obama administration took this action, the so-called “Net Worth Sweep,” without any Congressional authority to do so.

The result was that the U.S. Treasury “found” a way to sweep 100% of Fannie and Freddie profits into the Treasury’s “general fund,” leaving the giant mortgage GSEs vulnerable to the need for another government bailout should another disruption occur in the nation’s economy.

Because of this decision, the Obama administration on its own authority simply decided to discontinue paying dividends to private and institutional owners of Fannie and Freddie common and preferred stock.

Congress, in passing HERA, never anticipated the Obama administration would take over Fannie and Freddie and strip the agencies of all profits – a move that left private and institutional shareholders in the cold.

Leading up to the decision to sweep Fannie and Freddie’s profits, the GSEs return to imminent profitability was known only by a few government officials and their consultants.

Their own internal forecasts, uncovered in unsealed court documents, showed that Fannie and Freddie’s profitability would soon dramatically outperform the amount of the allowable 10% dividend that the Treasury would receive under the existing Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements.

On August 17, 2012, these same officials and consultants succeeded in engineering with the Federal Housing Financial Agency, FHFA, and the Department of Treasury an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements that allowed the U.S. Treasury to grab ALL Fannie and Freddie profits – regardless how large Fannie and Freddie’s earnings might be.

Between 2012, when the Obama administration began its policy of confiscating all Fannie and Freddie profits and now, Fannie and Freddie have paid the U.S. Treasury general fund more than $240 billion in dividends.

The point is that after May 12, 2016, when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that HHS had to stop diverting ACA funds to pay Obamacare subsidies, the Obama administration realized that HHS somehow had to fund the estimated $130 billion the HHS would need in un‐appropriated monies to pay health insurers the ACA subsidies required to keep Obamacare alive in Fiscal Year 2013.

Plaintiffs litigating against the Obama administration’s confiscation of Freddie and Fannie earnings have challenged in court whether the Obama administration’s decision to amend the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement in August 2012 and sweep GSE profits of $130 billion in 2013 ($82.4 billion from Fannie Mae, and $47.6 billion from Freddie Mac) was an attempt to circumvent Congress on the single most important policy priority of the White House.

The timing was particularly interesting given that September 2012 marked the beginning of the sequestration discussions.

Government documents leave little doubt profits from Fannie and Freddie confiscated by the U.S. Treasury have been used by the Obama administration to pay Obamacare subsidies and other items not appropriated by Congress, in complete and illegal circumvention of the District Court’s ruling and the Constitution’s determination that only the Congress shall have the power to tax and spend.

For instance, Chapter 3 of the Congressional Budget Office publication “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025” notes on page 63 that the major contributors to mandatory U.S. government spending include “… outlays for Medicaid, subsidies for health insurance purchases through exchanges, and the government’s transactions with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Why Fannie and Freddie are specified in this context, when Fannie and Freddie have had sufficient earnings to operate without government subsidies since 2008 is made clear a few pages later.

On page 65, in Table 3-2, the CBO report notes “mandatory outlays projected in CBO’s baseline” from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 2014 is -$74 billion and for 2015 a total of -$26 billion.

The figures are “negative dollar amounts” because instead of paying out to Freddie and Fannie, the U.S. Treasury is collecting from Freddie and Fannie, with the proceeds going into the U.S. Treasury general fund to pay “mandatory outlays,” including evidently continued subsidies to insurers, as specified by ACA Section 1402.

In footnote 14 on page 8 of that CBO report lets the cat out of the bag, noting the Obama administration considers payments from Freddie and Fannie “to be outside of the federal government for budgetary purposes,” recording cash payments from Freddie and Fannie to the Treasury as “federal receipts.”

The Obama administration evidently considered this all-too-convenient redefinition of terms allowed the government to argue the use of Fannie and Freddie profits to pay Obamacare Section 1402 subsidies was not in violation of the District Court ruling.

Why? Evidently because Fannie and Freddie profits were not taxpayer-generated, but were profit payments generated by Government Sponsored Entities that still had some common and preferred stock private and institutional shareholder ownership.

In the same footnote, the CBO takes exception with the Obama administration, commenting the CBO considers profit payments to the Treasury made by Fannie and Freddie to be “intragovernmental” receipts going into the same Treasury general fund pot, to be mixed indistinguishably with taxpayer revenue, not distinct public/private GSE “receipts” separately accounted for in the Treasury general fund as distinguishable from taxpayer revenue.

If the federal courts conclude Fannie and Freddie GSE “receipts” to Treasury still need Congressional appropriation to be spent legitimately by the executive branch of government, the Obama administration will have been exposed as having operated outside the Constitution in its desperate attempt to keep the ACA from imploding.

What should be outrageous to progressives understanding the Obama administration subterfuge to keep the ACA alive is that by confiscating Fannie/Freddie profits to keep Obamacare alive, Obama ignored core members of the Democratic Party’s core constituency – affordable housing advocates and minority groups – with little explanation.