Month: February 2017

CNN: Being an Illegal Alien ‘Not Necessarily’ a Crime

Illegal aliens who have overstayed their visas are “not necessarily” committing a crime just by remaining in the country illegally, according to CNN. The cable network explained in a piece titled “Are undocumented immigrants committing a crime? Not necessarily”, noting that they are not technically committing a crime by refusing to leave the U.S.: Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to enter into the U.S. without the approval of an immigration officer — it’s a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison. Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons. But that’s not a violation of federal criminal law — it’s a civil violation that gets handled in immigration court proceedings. In fact, a 2006 study showed that roughly 45% of undocumented immigrants originally entered the US legally, but then remained in the country without authorization after their visas had expired. Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) Mark Krikorian, though, says visa over-stays must commit a slew of federal crimes not only to remain in the U.S., but to work in the country as well. “If they’re working, most illegal immigrants who work, work on the books,” Krikorian told Breitbart Texas. “If that’s true, that means they produce false federal documents in order to work. You must show a driver’s license or Social Security number.” “If the information you’re showing is false, that’s perjury,” Krikorian said.

Exactly!!  It’s because of this type of liberal agenda-driven reporting that CNN’s ratings are in the toilet.  They are feeding a false narrative that is factually inaccurate!  If you are here illegally, either because you just crossed OR over-stayed your visa, you’re breaking the law.  Period!  AND, if you’re here illegally and working, then you’re breaking all sorts of laws as Mark correctly notes here.  It’s no wonder that Trump, and others, call them “fake news.”  Typical liberal media..

Univ. of Michigan students demand no-whites-allowed space to plot ‘social justice’ activism

A student activist group at the University of Michigan is demanding campus officials provide them with “a permanent designated space on central campus for Black students and students of color to organize and do social justice work.” The demand is one of several lodged by “Students4Justice,” who this month ratcheted up campus demonstrations to pressure administrators to cave, complaining in a newly launched petition that President Mark Schlissel has snubbed their demands. The clamor for a segregated space for students of color to organize social justice efforts comes even as the public university builds a $10 million center for black students and others in the center of campus. The new center is considered a “multicultural” one open to all students, but is under construction at the behest of a student group called Being Black at the University of Michigan, whose members complained that black students are marginalized because the original multicultural center they use is located on the outskirts of campus. In their demands, students explain why the new multicultural student center is not enough, “because we want a space solely dedicated to community organizing and social justice work specifically for people of color.” “We want documentation of past, current, and future student activism and this should be a permanent space that is staffed, and has resources for students to organize and share resources,” the demand letter states. Leaders of “Students4Justice” did not respond to requests from The College Fix seeking comment. Campus spokesman Rick Fitzgerald told The Fix that at “this point, our colleagues in Student Life have been working with the Students4Justice leaders to better understand their concerns. This is our normal process.” The demands caught the attention of the Michigan Review, an independent student news outlet which first reported on the issue — and criticized it. “The same organization that criticizes the University for failing to create ‘an environment that engages in diversity, equity and inclusion,’ is calling upon the University to undermine these ideals by facilitating a sort of de facto segregation? One where space and resources are designated for students based solely on the color of their skin?” the Review wrote. “To advocate for the ideals of diversity, equity and inclusion, while simultaneously calling upon the University to sanction these spaces on campus is both unprincipled and laughably regressive,” it added. The demands were first presented last fall, but an updated version was refiled with administrators in late January after a series of incidents deemed racist, according to the demand letter. This list of demands also call for more support for “marginalized” students “when oppressive attacks occur,” increasing the affirmative action of “Black, Arab, and other PoC” in tenured faculty, more readily alerting students on campus of “bias incidents,” and offering more financial aid for those of lower socioeconomic status. Students4Justice bemoan what they perceive as a lack of action from campus leadership to these demands. In addition to the petition, earlier this month they held a sit-in, as well as a silent protest when prospective students visited campus. “Our president has blatantly ignored us and it is time for us to speak up. We have been told that our demands are ‘rude,’” the group states on Facebook in announcing its petition. “We are calling on someone to care about students’ concerns and to lead us with integrity and help us fight against the oppression and hateful acts that try to destroy us and our community.”

Oh, that’s rich..  It is these self-righteous, anti-white racist, entitlement-minded, extreme liberal, spoiled brat kids that are destroying their “community,” and the atmosphere at Univ. of MI.  If they want to have their protests and have their little activist club, then fine.  BUT, I highly doubt that the alums, and taxpayers of MI (who all fund this school), don’t want to see those monies squandered on silly politically correct nonsense like this.  Hopefully the school president will push back against these free speech, and racial, bullies…and tell them to get back to class, for crying out loud.  We’ll, of course, keep an eye on this story…

Gregg Jarrett: Pelosi’s crazy claims about Priebus’ contact with the FBI don’t add up

Nancy Pelosi is nothing, if not inane. She is, of course, the former Speaker of the House who infamously said of ObamaCare, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” And who can forget the time she claimed that “500 million people will lose their jobs each month until we have an economic package” ? Which is a pretty neat trick since there are roughly 300 million people living in the U.S. So, it is understandable that Pelosi’s latest statement was met with the usual eye-rolling. She all but accused the Trump White House of obstructing justice when she described Chief of Staff Reince Priebus’s conversation with a senior FBI official as “a grave abuse of power…which may also be illegal.” Some background is helpful. Priebus says he was approached by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who described as inaccurate a New York Times article about repeated contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign. Priebus allegedly asked the FBI to correct the record by disabusing the story with the truth. Since Justice Department guidelines prohibit the FBI from speaking about an ongoing investigation, the agency declined to comment. (Of course, FBI Director James Comey, seemed to ignore those same guidelines when he chose to disclose details of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, but there is no shortage of hypocrisy in Washington.) Pelosi, who is prone to batty remarks, promptly denounced Priebus and convicted the president for his “explosive ties… to Russian intelligence agents.” She demanded a full-blown investigation by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General into felonious conduct which she did not bother to identify. The Democratic leader might consider popping a valium before she hyperventilates. It is not a crime to solicit the truth. Honesty is not a felony. Obstruction of justice is clearly defined by 18 USC 1503: “Whoever corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes…the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).” A companion section, 18 USC 1505, applies the same terminology to “the proper administration of law” before any department or agency of the U.S., which would include the FBI. No language in either statute even remotely approaches what Priebus asked McCabe to do. What corrupt act did the chief of staff commit? Maybe eliciting the truth is corrupt only in Pelosi’s world where facts seem immaterial. Obstruction is typically an effort to alter, destroy or conceal the truth and/or physical evidence. There is no suggestion that Priebus ever attempted to do so. To the contrary, reports indicate his sole desire was to refute a false story. How is that a crime under the law? Decidedly, it is not. Perhaps Pelosi was inspired by the inflammatory, albeit fallacious, tweets of liberal law professor Laurence Tribe who called for the indictment of Priebus for obstructing justice. The Harvard Law prof compared it to Richard Nixon and “his staff’s efforts to deflect the FBI investigation of the Watergate break-in.” Seriously? That’s laughable, professor. Soliciting the truth was anathema to Nixon and his “dirty tricksters”. Their sole objective was to hide the truth and demonize anyone who sought to reveal it. It became the legal standard for corrupt political acts. Reince Priebus may have been naïve to think that the FBI would get involved in rebutting a false narrative. But Nancy Pelosi is the one who is guilty of making a false accusation. And peddling the kind of canard for which she is well known.

Well said, Gregg.  Gregg Jarrett is a former defense attorney, and a current anchor over at the Fox News channel.

With executive order, Trump targets Obama rule on water protection

Once again drawing the ire of environmentalists, President Trump on Tuesday began to roll back a rule put in place by his predecessor that gave the federal government wide authority over small bodies of water across the country. Mr. Trump signed an executive order that directed the EPA to begin dismantling the “Waters of the U.S.” regulation, which gave the agency, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, power over small streams, lakes, ponds, and other waterways. The Obama-era rule was highly controversial when it was unveiled in May 2015, with conservatives, energy companies, the agricultural industry, and other stakeholders casting it as an precedented Washington power grab. Amid those concerns, a federal court in October 2015 stayed the rule after just a few months in effect. Mr. Trump’s decision Tuesday technically doesn’t take the regulation off the books for good, but it does give clear guidance to federal agencies that they must “review and reconsider” the rule immediately, potentially ending the ongoing legal battle. “EPA’s so-called Waters of the U.S. rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation. It has truly run amuck,” the president said during a White House ceremony Tuesday afternoon. “The Clean Water Act says the EPA can regulate navigable waters, meaning waters that truly affect interstate commerce. A few years ago the EPA decided that navigable waters can mean nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer’s land, or any place else they decide, right? It was a massive power grab.” In his order, Mr. Trump relied on a legal opinion written more than a decade ago by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In that opinion, Scalia said the “Waters of the United States” should apply only to permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water. Just as Mr. Trump argued Tuesday, critics long have contended that under the Obama administration’s interpretation, the Waters of the U.S. rule could, in theory, be applied to ditches or puddles, though the EPA had denied that claim. The move is the beginning of what will be a broad effort by Mr. Trump to use executive power to undo many Obama administration initiatives on climate change and the environment. The president is expected to soon sign another executive order undoing the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, the first set of national limits on carbon emissions from power plants.

Yes!!  Glad to see some common sense, as it relates to the out-of-control leviathan that is the EPA.  From day one here at The Daily Buzz, we’ve called on our federal government to first defund that federal agency, and then abolish it entirely. It’s very existence is unconstitutional, and let’s be clear..  It does NOTHING for our environment.  If anything, it causes damage to it!  Those of us here in sunny Colorado know that all too well.  Just Google:  Gold King Mine, and take a good hard look at what the EPA did to a couple of our rivers….and as of yet NOBODY has been reprimanded, let alone gone to jail for that disaster.  But, I digress..  We’re excited about this development, and look forward to more of this from Pres. Trump and his new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt.  Excellent!!    🙂

Animal rescue finds dogs left behind amid tons of trash at Dakota Access protest camp

Along with tons of garbage left behind at the Dakota Access protest camp, at least eight dogs have been discovered since protesters departed last week under a federal evacuation order. The canines — two adults and six puppies — were picked up by volunteers with Furry Friends Rockin’ Rescue after the last of the protesters exited the Oceti Sakowin camp, allowing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to join the massive cleanup effort. “Yesterday a group of volunteers headed down to the DAPL campsite and surrounding area and brought back some of the animals,” said the Bismarck rescue Saturday on its Facebook page. “They received immediate vet care, were given a bath and love, and will now remain in quarantine until we know they are healthy enough to be with other animals.” Julie Schirado of Furry Friends said the rescue effort has been made more difficult by conditions at the muddy, debris-strewn camp. A Florida-based sanitation company, hired by the corps on a $1 million contract, has moved in with dump trucks, loaders and other equipment to clear the encampment located on a federal floodplain before the snowmelt washes the trash into the Cannonball River. “It’s a mess down there, so it’s really, really hard to find these animals and get them,” Ms. Shirado told KFYR-TV in Bismarck. The protesters have come under criticism for abandoning the animals, but several commenters on the rescue’s Facebook page said that the dogs could have been strays that wandered into the camp on their own during the protest. Rescue workers have asked anyone who believes they own the dogs to contact the facility. Photos of the dogs are posted on the Furry Friends Facebook page.

Gotta love the breathtaking hypocrisy of these extreme lunatic liberal losers who are there, ostensibly, to protest in defense of the environment, and yet they leave TONS of garbage behind when they leave.  Of course the dominantly liberal mainstream media doesn’t report this side of the Dakota Access story, as it would undermine their extreme liberal environmental agenda.  But, I digress…  At the very least, the local authorities should write misdemeanor littering citations to these oxygen thieves; just add that to whatever else these maggots get charged with.  Then, on top of that, we find out that some poor critters have been abandoned.  To be fair, some MAY have wandered into the campsite.  But, c’mon..   None of these bleeding hearts were ready to take them in?  Guess not..  Liberals love to whine, protest, and so on…oh..and spend everyone else’s money..but don’t want to take any personal responsibility of their own.  Typical..

Majorities of Americans Want Bathrooms Linked to Biological Sex, Not Gender Identity

Majorities of Americans support the traditional concept of biological men using men’s restrooms and biological women using women’s restrooms, says a newly released poll from Crux/Marist. Additionally, the poll finds most Americans support the right of physicians and employers to choose not to perform or cover surgeries or treatments for the purpose of changing an individual’s sex. According to Crux: By a margin of almost 40 points, a majority of Americans – 66 percent to 27 percent – do not think “someone who is transitioning to become the opposite sex” should be allowed to use whichever showers or locker rooms they want. By a margin of nearly 20 points, a majority of Americans have the same opinion about bathroom use (56 percent to 38 percent). Eight in 10 Americans say doctors and other healthcare professionals should not be forced to be involved with operations intended to change someone’s sex, if they disagree with such procedures for religious reasons. Fewer than two in 10 disagree (18 percent). And by a margin of 30 points (62 percent to 32 percent), Americans believe employers should be legally allowed to opt out of covering medical procedures intended to change a person’s sex on the basis of freedom of religion. The survey was conducted December 12-13, 2016, with 545 U.S. adults participating using live telephone interviews. Results are statistically significant within 4.2 percentage points. A recent Rasmussen survey found only 28 percent of Americans support the Obama-era policy that claims the federal government should decide bathroom policies for elementary and secondary schools in the United States. The poll also found that only 38 percent favor “allowing transgender students to use the bathrooms of the opposite biological sex.” As 36 percent surveyed supports local government setting the bathroom school policies and 28 percent states that state government should design the rules for transgender students, a total of 64 percent of Americans prefer not having the federal government create bathroom policy based on gender ideology. A recent poll by a pro-transgender group at UCLA showed that only 23 percent of Americans think people should be allowed to switch their legal sex without any tests or approval by government agencies. In an April Civitas poll in which younger children were the focus of questions, results showed that only seven percent of 600 North Carolinians strongly supported a judge’s demand “ordering girls and boys in public middle schools to share locker rooms, bathroom, and shower facilities.” Seventy-two percent of respondents strongly opposed the demand. President Donald Trump announced last week he is rejecting former President Barack Obama’s May 2016 national K-12 school policy that allows a child’s choice of gender to supersede his or her actual biological sex. Trump has decided to return the issue to state and local governments, even though his administration has not announced whether it opposes the demand of transgender activists that “gender identity” should determine a person’s legal sex.

Judge Wapner of ‘People’s Court’ fame dead at 97

Joseph Wapner, the retired Los Angeles judge who presided over “The People’s Court” with steady force during the heyday of the reality courtroom show, died Sunday at age 97. Son David Wapner told The Associated Press that his father died at home in his sleep. Joseph Wapner was hospitalized a week ago with breathing problems and had been under home hospice care. “The People’s Court,” on which Wapner decided real small-claims from 1981 to 1993, was one of the granddaddies of the syndicated reality shows of today. His affable, no-nonsense approach attracted many fans, putting “The People’s Court” in the top five in syndication at its peak. Before auditioning for the show, Wapner had spent more than 20 years on the bench in Los Angeles, first in Municipal Court and then in Superior Court. At one time he was presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the largest court in the United States. He retired as judge in November 1979, the day after his 60th birthday. “Everything on the show is real,” Wapner told the AP in a 1986 interview. “There’s no script, no rehearsal, no retakes. Everything from beginning to end is like a real courtroom, and I personally consider each case as a trial.” “Sometimes I don’t even deliberate,” he added. “I just decide from the bench, it’s so obvious. The beautiful part is that I have carte blanche.” “The People’s Court” cases were tried without lawyers by the rules of Small Claims Court, which has a damage limit of $1,500. Researchers for the producer, Ralph Edwards Productions, checked claims filed in Southern California for interesting cases. The plaintiff and defendant had to agree to have the case settled on the show and sign a binding arbitration agreement; the show paid for the settlements. In some metropolitan counties, the number of small claims cases more than tripled during the 1980s; some cited Wapner as a cause. Johnny Carson invited Wapner him to come on “The Tonight Show” and settle a dispute between himself and David Letterman. Carson wanted to do it as a skit, but Wapner said no and conducted it like a trial. The dispute was over an old truck that Letterman kept parked by his property in Malibu. Carson said it was an eyesore and had it hauled away. When Letterman got it back, the headlights had been broken. “I awarded Letterman $24.95,” said Wapner. By the time Wapner left the show, in 1993, interest in the genre had cooled, but trials such as the Simpson trial and the courtroom theatrics of “Judge Judy” revived the TV-court craze starting in 1997. Wapner returned to “The People’s Court” show in 2000 to help celebrate its 3,000th episode, judging the case of a man suing over a piece of sports memorabilia. He said he had seen snippets of Judge Judy’s work, but generally never watched such shows. “I never watched myself,” he said. “Why should I watch them?” He also had a series on the Animal Planet cable channel called “Judge Wapner’s Animal Court.” Wapner was a Los Angeles native and received a law degree from the University of Southern California. He is survived by his wife of 70 years, Mickey, and by two sons, both of whom joined the legal profession. A daughter, Sarah, died in 2015. During his days as presiding Superior Court judge, Wapner was credited with innovations aimed at saving time for trial participants. A 1971 Los Angeles Times article described his steps to streamline jury selection or even dispense with juries altogether by increasing the number of cases heard solely by a judge chosen to be acceptable to both sides in the case. His courtroom was also used in 1971 in a brief test of a system to videotape trials to save on the cost of making a trial transcript. Wapner said he was often amazed at the lengths people would go to to prove a point: “A woman bought a birthday cake for her daughter for $9. She said it was moldy, and the baker offered to refund only $4.50. She picketed the bakery for six hours, then filed the claim. I found against the baker for $9.” He generally turned down guest shots on other shows, saying, “I’m not an actor, I’m a judge.”

Indeed..  Was sorry to hear this the other day..    R.I.P. your Honor..