Federal Judge blocks California law requiring Presidential candidates to release tax returns
Back at the end of July California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law which would require all Presidential candidates to release five years of tax returns in order to appear on his or her party’s primary ballot. This was a not so veiled attempt at forcing Donald Trump to release his taxes after the Mueller investigation did not result in the desired outcome.
Donald Trump sued to block the measure and today a Federal Judge has ordered a temporary injunction against the new law. Here is more:
A federal judge ordered a temporary injunction Thursday against California’s first-in-the-nation law requiring candidates to disclose their tax returns for a spot on the presidential primary ballot, an early victory for President Trump but a decision that will undoubtedly be appealed by state officials.
U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. said he would issue a final ruling in the coming days but took the unusual step of issuing the tentative order from the bench. He said there would be “irreparable harm without temporary relief” for Trump and other candidates from the law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July.
I believe that issuing this injunction just days before he makes his final decision is a clear indication that he is going to strike the law down, but you just do not know nowadays.
Even if this judge does strike the law down we know this is only the opening salvo in this fight and it is a guarantee that the left will find a judge to reverse this decision.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin to Beto O’Rourke: ‘not taking my guns away from me’
Okay, let us face it; Beto O’Rourke is not going to be taking any guns away from anybody because Beto O’Rourke is never going to be President, but just in case he pulls off a miracle and does implement his confiscatory gun policies Democratic Senator Joe Manchin has a message for him:
“Beto’s one human being,” Manchin said, according to a Journal reporter. “He gave his own opinion, OK? I think it was very harmful to make it look like all the Democrats. I can tell you one thing: Beto O’Rourke’s not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that OK?”
It is nice to see that there are still some Democrats out there who believe in the Second Amendment, they are few and far between, but Beto does speak for more Democrats on this issue than Manchin does at this point in time.
It is interesting to see the free pass he is getting for this comment by the liberals. Liberals were disgusted by comments a Texas State Representative that nobody had ever heard of before, Briscoe Cain, said in response to Beto O’Rourke’s plan to confiscate scary looking weapons. They claimed this comment was a threat and proof that he should not own an AR in the first place. Liberals also claim that when gun owners say what Joe Manchin said that it is a veiled threat but yet when one of their own say it they are silent…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
New York Times authors of Kavanaugh article claim the editors removed crucial information
Over the weekend several of the Democratic Presidential candidates made fools out of themselves (and they were not the only ones) by calling for the impeachment of Brett Kavanaugh based on a spurious hit piece put out by the New York Times.
It turned out the woman in the story has no recollection of the event described in the article–which relied on the second-hand account of a person with ties to Hillary Clinton–and the paper had to backtrack from the story.
How could the once reputable paper screw up so badly other than the fact they wanted the story to be true so much that they were willing to run with an uncorroborated story? That is one way, but there are other possibilities; what if the paper did not care whether or not the story was true? What if the paper went out of its way to libel a Supreme Court Justice?
That is beginning to sound like the case because it is now being reported that the authors of this story claim they wrote that the victim had no recollection of the alleged incident which supposedly scarred her for life, but that the editors decided that was not pertinent information that the public needed to know.
And liberals wonder why the people no longer trust the mainstream media…or the reactionary, vindictive Democrats for that matter.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Russia infiltrated FBI communications during the Obama era
Russia. Russia. Russia. The left is very worried about Russia nowadays. Jerry Nadler is still trying to impeach the President because he is so worried about what Russia was up to in the 2016 election even though the Mueller report exonerated him.
But the left was not always worried about Russia, I remember during the 2012 election when Mitt Romney claimed Russia was America’s number one geo-political threat and was ridiculed for being stuck in the 1980’s. I remember that debate clearly when Barack Obama thought he was being funny when he quipped “the ’80’s called and they want their foreign policy back.”
Now it turns out that either the Obama administration and the Democrats should have been worried about Russia, or they knew Russia was a threat and were trying to hide the fact that Russia had infiltrated FBI communications during Barack Obama’s time in office.
Here is more:
A report published by Yahoo News on Monday described a “brazen Russian counterintelligence operation that stretched from the Bay Area to the heart of the nation’s capital” during the presidency of Barack Obama. The operation penetrated FBI communications to a “stunning” degree, according to officials quoted in the story, but was misunderstood and downplayed by the intelligence community and the Obama administration, which was ostentatiously attempting to “reset” relations with Russia when the operation began.
To make a very long story short, the Russians took advantage of the Obama administration’s much-ballyhooed “reset” in relations to set up an aggressive network of electronic monitoring devices in the United States, the effort gaining further momentum after Russian President Vladimir Putin became convinced the U.S. was manipulating protests in Russia to delegitimize elections with allegations of vote fraud.
There is much much detail in the above-linked article, I would suggest you all check it out, but did you catch that last paragraph? Russia was convinced the United States was meddling in their elections, and we know Barack Obama meddled in Israel’s election so I would be willing to bet Vladimir Putin was right, so he began a spying operation on the United States which our President “misunderstood and downplayed” because he wanted to reset relations with Russia even though he was meddling in their election. Methinks he was a little too coy for his own good.
Despite how quickly the left was willing to jump on Brett Kavanaugh over the weekend on a fake news report by the New York Times they are strangely silent on the news that Barack Obama allowed Russia to infiltrate FBI communications because he wanted a better relationship with Russia…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, September 15th open thread: ‘New Jack Hustler’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Ice-T performing “New Jack Hustler” on Soul Train back in 1991. It looks like the video will not play here, if you want to watch it you will have to click on the link where the video is supposed to be. Apologies.
Beto O’Rourke: ‘hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15’
Despite assurances from Democrats and their voters for years that “nobody wants to take your guns” and despite the fact these same people have been calling gun activists paranoid and brainwashed by the NRA for wanting to protect their Second Amendment right, more and more candidates have been coming out and admitting that they do indeed intend to confiscate weapons.
Beto O’Rourke became the first politician to have the guts to come out and say as much, although he called it a “mandatory buyback program”, and others were soon to follow. But just in case you still are not sure where the Democrats really stand on the Second Amendment Beto O’Rourke decided to clarify it just a bit during the Democratic debate the other night.
“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” was what he said, there is no ambiguity there, that is a clear statement of where he stands on the Second Amendment. And notice he said we’re not I? Democrats will likely say he was referring to his administration and not the Democratic party in general but I am afraid he let the cat out of the bag, this is exactly what we have been saying about the Democrats for years and you can rest assured they all feel the same way.
As for the Democratic voters who have been calling us paranoid all these years, did you hear how they cheered when Beto O’Rourke made this bold statement about gun confiscation? They left no doubt where they stand on this issue and just like everything else the government does this program, if implemented, will only grow over time and more weapons will be added to the banned list.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
US Attorney recommends prosecution for Andrew McCabe
It looks like the first shoe is about to drop in the Russia investigation, and I not talking about any collusion between Russia and Donald Trump but rather the collusion between the deep state agencies and the Democratic party.
It is being reported here that Andrew McCabe lost his appeal to avoid prosecution and he may be headed to trial for perjury and leaking information. Here is more:
U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu has recommended moving forward with charges against Andrew McCabe, Fox News has learned, as the Justice Department rejects a last-ditch appeal from the former top FBI official and current CNN contributor.
The potential charges relate to DOJ inspector general findings against him regarding misleading statements concerning a Hillary Clinton-related investigation.
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in March 2018 after the inspector general found he had repeatedly misstated his involvement in a leak to The Wall Street Journal regarding an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
The IG report faulted McCabe for leaking information to then-Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett for an Oct. 30, 2016 story titled “FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe.” The story — written just days before the presidential election – focused on the FBI announcing the reopening of the Clinton investigation after finding thousands of her emails on a laptop belonging to former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who was married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The last couple of days have not been good for the Russia investigation; besides this news on Andrew McCabe we also learned yesterday that the Department of Justice cleared Michael Flynn of any wrongdoing but never informed him. The investigation was allowed to drag on until Michael Flynn had to cop a plea to avoid bankruptcy.
Hopefully this is just the beginning and justice will be served eventually.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Michael Flynn was exonerated by the DOJ before his plea bargain but this information was withheld from him
You may remember during the Russia investigation Michael Flynn was almost drained of all of his money while defending himself, so he eventually was forced to a plea bargain because he could no longer afford to fight for his freedom. Well, now it turns out, if this story is true, the Department of Justice had exonerated him before he made his plea bargain but this information was kept from Michael Flynn. Here is more:
A bombshell revelation was barely noticed at National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s hearing Tuesday, when his counsel revealed in court the existence of a Justice Department memo from Jan. 30, 2017 exonerating Flynn of any collusion with Russia. The memo, which has still not been made available to Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell, is part of a litany of Brady material she is demanding from prosecutors. The memo is currently under protective order and Powell is working with prosecutors to get it disclosed, SaraACarter.com has learned.
Powell will likely seek to have case dismissed for ‘egregious’ prosecutorial misconduct and withholding of exculpatory material.
“Judge Sullivan is obviously taking the Brady issues very seriously and clearly told the prosecutors that his Brady order stands regardless of the plea agreement or the plea,” Powell told SaraACarter.com. “If the prosecutors here were seeking justice instead of a conviction, General Flynn would not have been prosecuted. They have been hiding evidence that he was exonerated in early 2017.”
Powell noted the extraordinary misconduct of the government during the hearing. She also said that Flynn would have never pleaded guilty if the government had disclosed the Brady materials before the original trial that she is now demanding. There would not have been a plea if the prosecutors had met their Brady obligations, Powell argued before the court.
If this is true it is shocking to say the least! And as shocking as it is it even more disturbing because it shows how far the Democrats will go to destroy a political enemy and strip him of his freedom.
If this is true they knew he was innocent and they did not care because in their eyes somebody had to pay because they lost an election they never should have lost. I cannot get over how shocking and disturbing I find this and I am at a poverty of words to describe it, sorry for repeating myself.
So I think we finally have the answer to why Michael Flynn’s sentencing keeps getting delayed and it looks like it will be delayed again. And if there is any justice this case will end up being dismissed.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Supreme Court allows Donald Trump’s new asylum rule to go into effect
It has been a bumpy road for Donald Trump’s new asylum rule which requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum in the first country they enter after fleeing their country before they can apply for asylum in the United States. (I always thought this was how asylum worked in the first place.)
First a California judge, Jon Tigar, overstepped his bounds and blocked the rule nationwide and then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in and narrowed the decision to where the judge actually had jurisdiction. However this same California judge turned around and re-implemented the ban nationwide despite the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling that Jon Tigar did not have the jurisdiction to do so.
The on-again off-again rule is back on again because the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration and against this rogue California judge. Here is more:
The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.
The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border.
The Supreme Court decision apparently comes on the heels of the 9th Circuit once again narrowing the nationwide ban, so this decision goes even further than the 9th Circuit decision allowed. It looks like only Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented so that means John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh held true this time.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 