WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed in a statement on Thursday that top al Qaeda bomb maker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, believed to have masterminded a failed bombing of a U.S.-bound airliner in 2009, was killed two years ago in a U.S. counterterrorism operation in Yemen.
U.S. officials said last year that they were confident al-Asiri had been killed, but others had cautioned at the time that the evidence was not conclusive.
Did Donald Trump demand a quid pro quo for US aid by intimidating the new Ukrainian president into digging up dirt on Hunter Biden? Democrats in the House are convinced the answer is yes, but Volodymyr Zelensky says no. In a lengthy press avail earlier in Kyiv, Zelensky told reporters that his July 25 conversation with Trump was “not corruption, it was just a call.” Zelensky also helpfully added that no extortion took place over either US aid or a White House visit, the BBC reports:
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said there was “no blackmail” in a phone call with Donald Trump that is at the heart of a possible attempt to remove the US president from office.
“This is not corruption, it was just a call,” Mr Zelensky said on Thursday. …
Speaking to reporters at a news conference in Kiev on Thursday, Mr Zelensky said of his 25 July call with Mr Trump: “There was no blackmail. It was not the subject of our conversation.”
He said the purpose of the conversation was to arrange a meeting with Trump, and there were no “conditions” from the US side.
The Associated Press offered a much more editorialized version of Zelensky’s remarks. After first noting that the Ukrainian president is “trying to save his reputation” and describing him as “embarrassed … eager to please Trump,” they get around to reporting that Zelensky considers the US transcript of the call accurate, and that he didn’t feel pressured at all on the call:
He said he “didn’t even check” whether the Ukrainian transcript of the July call is the same as that of the White House, but says “I think they match.” …
Zelenskiy said the call “wasn’t linked to weapons or the story with (Ukrainian gas company) Burisma,” where Biden’s son Hunter served on the board.
Zelensky didn’t appear to be too uptight in ABC’s portion of the “media marathon,” as the Ukrainians called it. Despite considerable pressure from reporter Tom Llamas, Zelensky refused to call Trump’s mention of Biden in the call “corrupt,” and insisted that his administration wants to deal with all corruption equally:
Donald Trump made sure to mark the occasion:
The President of the Ukraine just stated again, in the strongest of language, that President Trump applied no pressure and did absolutely nothing wrong. He used the strongest language possible. That should end this Democrat Scam, but it won’t, because the Dems & Media are FIXED!
Will this end the House Democrats’ impeachment push? Not on your life, as Trump himself acknowledges, but it might dent its credibility a bit. We now have both the transcript and Zelensky’s public corroboration of it on record, plus Zelensky’s testimony to the media about it. No doubt some self-interest is involved in Zelensky’s calculation, but it’s tough to build a case of quid pro quo and corruption when the two players in the alleged act both say nothing of the sort occurred — and the record backs that up.
Meanwhile, RealClearInvestigations’ Eric Felten picks up on a leak in Ukraine over a very different allegation of pressure and quid pro quo involving a US administration. A Ukrainian newspaper somehow magically got hold of some notes from Rudy Giuliani’s private investigation, and voila!
The five pages of typewritten, printed-out notes – not transcripts –together with the IG’s cover letter to lawmakers, were posted this week on a Ukrainian website, The Babel. They appear to memorialize two conversations: one on Jan. 23, when Giuliani spoke by phone with the former general prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin; the other is from two days later, when Shokin’s successor, then-General Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, met Giuliani in New York.
In addition to the fired Shokin’s claim that President Poroshenko warned him not to investigate Burisma because it was not in the Bidens’ interest, the notes say, the prosecutor also said he “was warned to stop” by the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt. …
Recounting Shokin’s version of events, the notes say he “was called into Mr. Poroshenko’s office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.” Poroshenko later told Shokin that “he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden,” the Giuliani interview notes say.
That’s certainly, um, helpful. Giuliani has confirmed the authenticity of his notes, and why not? It’s not outside the realm of possibility that he leaked them himself, given how helpful it is to his narrative. We do know, though, that the latter part of this does relate to actual events, because Joe Biden himself was helpful enough to brag about holding up a billion dollars in US aid to get Shokin fired.
Since then, Biden has insisted that Shokin wasn’t being aggressive enough about Burisma and other oligarch-controlled entities in Ukraine, and accuses everyone who looks askance at the late-2015 quid pro quo of misreading Shokin’s own corruption. Shokin obviously has his reasons for disputing that, and Giuliani has his reasons to make sure Shokin’s story gets out.
Is it true? It’s tough to say without a truly independent investigation, but Hunter’s connection to Burisma and those probes created a clear conflict of interest for Biden as Vice President. At the very least under these circumstances, Poroshenko could be forgiven a mistaken conclusion that Biden was acting to protect his son, if in fact it was a mistaken conclusion. That conflict of interest is why Biden’s earning the scrutiny that’s coming, about which we’ll have more shortly.
Tuesday, during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Fox Sports 1’s “Speak For Yourself” co-host Jason Whitlock offered an in-depth analysis of the ongoing saga involving the National Basketball Association and the Chinese government.
Whitlock explained to host Tucker Carlson much of the NBA’s tack on China was being done on behalf of the shoe companies with ties to professional basketball. That he explained has an impact on U.S. culture.
CARLSON: Jason Whitlock is the host of “Speak for Yourself” on Fox Sports One and he joins us tonight.
So Jason, this seems inexcusable behavior from the NBA. What’s your view of it?
JASON WHITLOCK, FOX SPORTS ONE HOST: Well, I think the cultural impact that China’s influence over a great sport, a great American sport like basketball is just now being exposed at just how dependent the NBA is on the Chinese economy and Chinese money to put on the appearance of how great the league is doing. Without the Chinese money and without —
Because you really have to understand the shoe companies — Nike, Adidas — they run American Basketball from the high school level all the way to the pros and the shoe companies are dependent on the China market and that’s where all of this is coming from.
You see NBA players constantly over the summer, during their offseason, running to China, to do the bidding of their shoe companies and to sell their shoes in the China market. And so the NBA is really being exposed as not nearly as much of American business, as it is a global business, with China, perhaps having more influence over it than even America.
CARLSON: Which is shocking, given that, of course — and shocking because I don’t think most people know that.
WHITLOCK: No.
CARLSON: But also shocking given that the NBA was, of course, incubated in this country. It wouldn’t have been possible in any other. Basketball was invented in Springfield, Massachusetts in a YMCA. It is the most American of all sports. And I don’t know that there’s any basketball arena that wasn’t subsidized by American taxpayers. So like, how could they possibly take this position?
WHITLOCK: Tucker, the cultural impact of this, and what a great teachable moment it is for most Americans is when people start talking about being a global citizen, I don’t think people really understand what that means for American culture.
And I think for a lot of the everyday, typical American sports fan, this is an educational experience. This is what people have been talking about. We can’t let our corporations, our country being totally driven by China because it’s driving our culture.
These basketball players — LeBron James. James Harden, actually apologized on behalf of Daryl Morey to the Chinese government. We’re apologizing to a communist government, and then we have athletes here and coaches like Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich that rail against our government. We’re the bad guys in the minds of these NBA players and coaches and their little parade of being so woke, all of it to me is at the behest of the shoe companies.
They’re doing the bidding of the shoe companies and protecting China and demonizing us and our culture and dramatically changing our culture. Because these athletes are young and I’m not giving them an excuse, but they’re young. Many of them didn’t go to college or only spent a year or two in college. They don’t understand how they are being used and played to promote a communist, a Marxist agenda.
They have no idea that their actions and a lot of the things they’re promoting, this victim mentality and all the identity politics and oh, everything that America is racist — all of it. It’s all a scam by the shoe companies.
Look how socially aware we are, look how we fight against injustice. No, you’re actually doing a marketing ploy to pretend you have a social conscience, and you’re actually doing the bidding of the communist regime in China.
CARLSON: Yes, maybe the single most racist government in the world. It’s literally an ethno state. And here’s the socially conscious NBA — very quick, it’s a little shocking to me that Kerr of all people who never hesitates to give his opinion and is often lauded for it, can’t manage to say that he takes Hong Kong’s side?
WHITLOCK: Tucker, these guys can rail against our government, our President and be applauded for it. They don’t have the courage to speak out against a communist government, all kinds of human rights violations. It’s the epitome of hypocrisy and cowardice.
CARLSON: It really is. And thank you for putting it in context with the shoe companies. I think that’s the most interesting thing I’ve heard in a long time. Jason Whitlock. Great to see you tonight.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has sent a letter detailing five questions he has for Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
Late last month, Atkinson testified behind closed doors before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. During that time, Cotton’s staff said, the IG “refused to answer questions about the political bias of the ‘whistleblower,’ despite being in a closed session and despite this information being unclassified.” Later, Atkinson offered this information to the House Intelligence Committee, which is chaired by a Democrat.
On Wednesday, Cotton sent a letter to Atkinson with five unanswered questions from his testimony.
“Your disappointing testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on September 26 was evasive to the point of being insolent and obstructive,” Cotton says in the letter. “Despite repeated questions, you refused to explain what you meant in your written report by ‘indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.’ This information is, of course, unclassified and we were meeting in a closed setting. Yet you moralized about how you were duty bound not to share even a hint of this political bias with us.”
Cotton’s questions center around the whistleblower’s political bias:
Does the complainant have (or did he once have) a professional relationship with a Democratic presidential candidate or campaign?
If so, which candidate or campaign and what is the nature of that relationship?
What other “indicia of arguable political bias” of the complainant did you find?
Did you or anyone subject to your control or influence share with CNN that the “arguable political bias” was merely that the complainant is a registered Democrat?
Why did you refuse to answer my questions at the September 26 hearing?
Cotton gave Atkinson a deadline of 5:00 pm on Friday, October 11 to answer the questions.
As Julie Kelly of American Greatness noted, Cotton’s letter lacks any real teeth, reminding readers that the GOP Senate has regularly sent “strongly worded letters” without ever following up on them.
“We’ve seen this movie before in GOP Senate – threats and demands that are never followed-up,” Kelly tweeted. “Just this week, the Senate Judiciary committee asked about criminal referrals it send to DOJ A YEAR AGO related to the Kavanaugh debacle. Lots of letters sent in 2017/18 about FISA/Spy/Russiagate. No action.”
So we have another strongly-worded *letter* from a GOP Senator demanding answers from a shady bureaucrat he called “insolent and obstructive” for refusing to answer questions about the whistleblower even though the info isn’t classified. Cotton set a deadline of tomorrow for… https://t.co/JhhfYpiFcZ
A YEAR AGO related to the Kavanaugh debacle. Lots of letters sent in 2017/18 about FISA/Spy/Russiagate. No action. I hope @SenTomCotton does not repeat the same mistake here with Atkinson.
Indeed, throughout the two year investigation into whether President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (the investigation of which found no evidence to support the media and Democrat’s continued claims about this), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent numerous letters demanding answers to questions. Some of those letters, such as this one, sought answers as to why Democrat-connected consultants were allowed to retroactively file under the Foreign Agents Registration Act while Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was indicted for not doing so in a timely manner. Another letter from Grassley asked why the FBI raided the home of a whistleblower “who reportedly disclosed information about the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One transaction.” These and numerous other letters from the senator were never followed up on, and as Kelly pointed out, neither was the criminal referrals for people who provided false testimony during the investigation into Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Despite Prior FBI Statements that Seth Rich’s DNC Computer and Emails Were Investigated, FBI Now Claims No Related Docs in FOIA Request. Attorney Requesting Documents Demands Court Step In.
that Texas businessman Ed Butowsky filed a lawsuit where he outed reporter Ellen Ratner as his source for information on Seth Rich. The DNC operative was murdered in the summer of 2016 in Washington DC. His murder was never solved. According to the lawsuit Seth Rich provided WikiLeaks the DNC emails before the 2016 election, not Russia.
This totally destroys the FBI and Mueller’s claims that Russians hacked the DNC to obtain these emails.
Butowsky claims in his lawsuit:
Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange wanted the information relayed to Seth’s parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth’s murder.
On November 9 2016 Ellen Ratner admitted publicly that she met with Julian Assange for three hours the Saturday before the 2016 election. According to Ratner, Julian Assange told her the leaks were not from the Russians, they were from an internal source from the Hillary Campaign.
We later reported that Butowsky and his attorney, Ty Clevenger, requested and obtained documents from the FBI related to their case which we were able to analyze.
According to the duo, they obtained the transcript from former FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki where he states that the Obama White House was the entity that was pushing the Russia conspiracy as early as October 2016 –
Rybicki was corrupt cop James Comey’s Chief of staff –
Newly released documents from the FBI suggest that the Obama White House pushed intelligence agencies to publicly blame the Russians for email leaks from the Democratic National Committee to Wikileaks.
This afternoon I received an undated (and heavily redacted) transcript of an interview of James Rybicki, former chief of staff to former FBI Director James Comey, that includes this excerpt: “So we understand that at some point in October of 2016, there was, I guess, a desire by the White House to make some kind of statement about Russia’s…” and then the next page is omitted.
The comment is made by an unidentified prosecutor from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel or “OSC,” not to be confused with the office of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller (the OSC is a permanent office that investigates Hatch Act violations, and Mr. Comey was under investigation for trying to influence the 2016 Presidential election).
Roger Stone’s Indictment
Trump friend Roger Stone is facing charges from the Mueller gang that are based on this key question – who provided the DNC and Podesta emails to WikiLeaks?
The corrupt FBI and Mueller team claim the emails were hacked but neither entity inspected the DNC server which was supposedly hacked. They have provided no proof of this.
Former NSA whistleblower Bill Binney claims he has evidence the DNC emails were not hacked but copied most likely on to a flashdrive or something similar.
NSA Whistleblower and longtime intelligence analyst Bill Binney on continuation of #RussiaGate fever: "The problem with the Mueller Report & the Rosenstein indictment is it’s based on lies."
Bill Binney, is more than an expert, he is “A Good American”. Binney developed a system for the NSA that would have identified the 9-11 terrorist attack before it occurred, but the NSA shut down his project. This is all documented in Oliver Stone’s “A Good American”. We encourage you to watch this video about Binney’s work with the NSA and their subsequent follow up after 9-11 below –
We also reported –
When Ty Clevenger requested documents from the FBI related to any investigation into the death of Seth Rich, they replied that they never investigated Seth Rich and they don’t even have any records on him –
But when documents were requested from the NSA, they replied that they won’t release their records regarding Seth Rich because it’s a matter of national security –
USC 552(b)(1) states: This section does not apply to matters that are—
(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
So the FBI never investigated the Seth Rich murder even though the NSA said the case was a matter of national security?
Attorney Ty Clevenger requested documents again from the FBI related to any communications related to the death of Seth Rich –
Clevenger claims that the FBI did not perform its search in good faith after first declaring that they did not have to perform the search. Clevenger also claims that his client, Ed Butowsky, has information that the Seth Rich’s devices were inspected and he wants the results of those investigations –
Clevenger wants the FBI to continue their search and not cover things up because their first review for documents related to Seth Rich was inadequate.
Update Today October 10, 2019 ==>>
Clevenger has requested that the US Department of Justice provide him documents he is requesting based on some new information and also is asking the court to allow him to compel the FBI
to produce Mr. Hardy (the individual at the FBI who has not provided documents requested) and the chief of CART as witnesses at an evidentiary hearing –
Clevenger is making his request based on some new information that he obtained related to actions the FBI took related to Seth Rich. According to Deep State reported Michael Isikoff formerly with Newsweek and now with Yahoo (yes, the same individual involved in the Russia collusion hoax) the FBI had numerous activities related to Seth Rich. On page two of Clevenger’s motion, Clevenger notes the following discussion that can be heard on Isikoff’s podcast –
So according to Deep State hack Isikoff –
1 The FBI had been contacted by the DOJ about Seth Rich 2 The FBI had been examining Seth Rich’s computer 3 The FBI was looking into Seth Rich’s gmail account 4 The FBI investigated an attempt to hack into Seth Rich’s computer 5 And, finally, confirmed liar Andrew McCabe from the FBI said there was nothing to the stories regarding Seth Rich!
Hmmm, it sure sounds like the FBI is trying to hide something.
When you look at the kinds of films that get PG-13 ratings, you think of raunchy comedies aimed at teenagers or the sort of superhero movies which feature just enough violence to please the crowds but not enough of it to earn the R-rating kiss of death.
You don’t usually think about documentaries that revolve around censorship on college campuses, particularly when the filmmakers are aiming for a PG-13 rating.
Yet, that’s exactly what’s happening to Dennis Prager’s feature film about the phenomenon, titled “No Safe Spaces.”
The very title — and the people behind it — might give you a good idea about why it’s being given that designation.
The film, which Prager made with comedian Adam Carolla, focuses on “the ongoing debate over the First Amendment on college campuses across the country and how identity politics enables it,” Fox News reported.
Yet, despite repeatedly trying to get the Motion Picture Association of America to agree to a PG rating, they weren’t able to achieve it.
According to a statement that Prager issued to Fox News, the issue seemed to be quotes from both Prager and psychologist Jordan Peterson, as well as footage of a conservative student being assaulted.
He also compared the ruling from the MPAA as equivalent to the demonetization of some of his PragerU videos.
“Despite our best efforts to meet the MPAA more than halfway, they have continued to deny us the PG rating our film deserves,” Prager said in a statement.
Do you think Dennis Prager is right about bias at the MPAA?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
“Jordan Peterson’s and my quotes will stay and we will not censor the real-life punching of a conservative student. The much more graphic films that regularly receive PG ratings only serve to illustrate what I have experienced with Google in their efforts to make PragerU videos hard to find: powerful forces in Silicon Valley and Hollywood have one standard for ideological allies and another for people like me,” he said.
A video released by Prager demonstrates the three clips in question.
In one, Prager jokes that one of his PragerU video on the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal was considered “restricted” material by YouTube, which he quipped made it the equivalent of “Debbie Does Dallas,” a 1978 pornographic film.
In another, Peterson jokes that life is a “sexually transmissible disease that’s 100 percent fatal.”
The final clip features an individual punching a Turning Point USA activist at the University of California, Berkeley.
“I will urge my friends and fans who only go to PG movies to ignore the MPAA’s fake PG-13 rating and go anyway. And please bring friends,” Prager said.
I have to say this much: It takes a lot of nerve to take a movie about censorship and then slap it with the same rating as “Avengers: Endgame” because it contains one scene that involves real-life footage of a punch and two mild jokes that pale in comparison to what gets shoved into other PG-rated movies.
When “No Safe Spaces” hits theaters on Oct. 25, it’s arguable how much it’s going to be hampered by the PG-13 rating.
At one level, you can see some parents who are familiar with Prager and Carolla seeing the rating and being dissuaded from seeing it. On the other hand, with most documentaries like this, it’s a rare thing that people wander into the movie theater not knowing what to expect.
Even if it is the latter case, that doesn’t mean this rating is remotely justified. If these were indeed the three things which the ratings board demanded be excised in order for the film to get a PG rating, it’s yet another sign both Hollywood and the MPAA are morally unmoored.
The great irony here is that this is exactly the same thing that happened to the PragerU videos. Google swore up and down there wasn’t some sort of double standard for conservative content on its platforms.
In that case, however, it was impossible to see every bit of content that’s been demonetized on YouTube and judge whether or not that was accurate.
On the other hand, we’ve all seen PG and PG-13 movies.
If these are the two jokes and the violence that got it a PG-13 rating, Prager — and conservatives — have every reason to be incensed.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Hillary Clinton says she may decide to run for a second term as President of her Imagination. “I beat Trump once, I can beat him again,” said Mrs. Clinton, before falling off her barstool, rolling under a table, banging her head on a chair leg, and lapsing into a period of unconsciousness during which she dreamed that she really was president and all the people loved her so very, very much.
Mrs. Clinton made the remarks after Donald Trump sent out a tweet reminding his followers of Clinton’s history of corruption going back forty years.
“Those are all old, old stories,” Mrs. Clinton told a lamp-post while trying to figure out how to put on her coat. “The feds have been trying to nail me for years and the lousy screws have never put a finger on me, see, so eat lead, John Law, yeah, that’s right, that’s what I said, to hell with you G-men, if you think I’m gonna die in some hellhole of a prison, think again, coppers.”
Mrs. Clinton then climbed to the top of a gas storage facility waving a tommy gun and shouting “Top o’ the world, Ma!” before the facility exploded in a blinding ball of flame.
When Mrs. Clinton recovered consciousness, she issued a statement to what was either a bevy of reporters hanging on her every word, or a collection of Cabbage Patch Kids arranged on chairs to look like reporters, saying, “Ever since I beat Donald Trump in the last election, I’ve done such a great job as president, it’s a shame my administration was invisible to the American public because of the veil of illusion cast by an evil wizard who lives at the bottom of a bottle of Chardonnay. But one day, so help me, I’ll find that bottle and this nightmare will come to an end.”
Elizabeth Warren said she was eager for Hillary to join the race, so she’d no longer be the biggest liar running.
Kowtowing to Communists. Via Daily Wire: President Trump weighed in for the first time Wednesday on the ongoing NBA-China debacle by publicly shaming two high-profile coaches for “pandering to China.” Championship-winning coaches Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich, said Trump, refuse to voice criticism of Communist China’s oppressive policies but seem to have no such hesitations […]
The federal government is running a nearly trillion-dollar deficit this fiscal year. The reason (and this isn’t complex): It spends more than it brings in.
When households go into the red, couples usually take a simple step — stop spending so much.
But not our government.
Case in point: A new study shows that taxpayers could have to pay out as much as $23 billion a year to give “Obamacare” health coverage to illegal aliens.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) calculates that there are nearly 5 million illegals who would qualify for subsidies through the health care system created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by former president Barack Obama. The average cost would be about $4,500, so if all of them took the subsidies, it’d cost $22.5 billion.
Even if less than half enroll, it would still cost $10 billion.
“Many of the Democratic candidates for president have endorsed providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. This analysis estimates the cost of providing illegal immigrants access to the existing system of government health benefits for low-income people,” CIS writes.
“?We estimate that there are 4.9 million uninsured illegal immigrants with incomes low enough to qualify for Medicaid or Advanced Premium Tax Credits (APTC), which are the subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Assuming a realistic enrollment rate, the cost of providing ACA subsidies to illegal immigrants would be about $10 billion per year, with costs rising to as much as $23 billion per year if all eligible illegal immigrants enrolled. Costs would be similar under a hybrid approach that provides Medicaid for the lowest-income illegal immigrants and ACA subsidies for those with higher incomes.”
CIS said continuing to allow foreigners to flow in illegally will create “a significant burden for taxpayers.”
“Numbers aside, the fact that presidential candidates are advocating spending billions of dollars on people who are in the country illegally is significant in its own right. It suggests that allowing in large numbers of less-educated workers will inevitably generate significant political pressure to provide them access to social programs. If there is significant political pressure to provide coverage to people in the country illegally, it seems almost certain that over time pressure will grow to provide healthcare to low-wage guestworkers and other ‘temporary’ immigrants as well.
“The high cost of providing healthcare to less-educated workers who earn modest wages is a reminder that tolerating illegal immigration or allowing such workers into the country legally is likely to create a significant burden for taxpayers,” CIS writes.
Cities are also being crushed by illegal aliens. Los Angeles County paid nearly $1.3 billion in welfare money during 2015 and 2016 to families of illegal aliens. That number amounts to one-quarter of the total spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to Fox News.
In 2015, more than 58,000 families received $602 million in benefits. The next year, some 64,000 families received $675 million.
Meanwhile, new data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that more than 22 million non-citizens now live in the United States.
The Bureau on Thursday released details from its annual American Community Survey. According to estimates extrapolated from data collected, 22.1 million are “not a U.S. citizen,” the data showed.
President Donald Trump signed a pair of executive orders Wednesday afternoon with the goal of creating more transparency in the process of creating and promulgating federal regulations.
“Today, we take bold, new action to protect Americans from out-of-control bureaucracy and stop regulators from imposing secret rules and hidden penalties on the American people,” Trump said at the Wednesday afternoon signing at the White House.
One of the two executive orders bars federal agencies from skipping the cost-benefit analysis and avoiding public comment when issuing legally binding requirements related to laws and regulations and requires that “guidance documents” be treated as “non-binding both in law and in practice.”
“For many decades, federal agencies have been issuing thousands of pages of so-called ‘guidance’ documents — a pernicious kind of regulation imposed by unaccountable bureaucrats in the form of commentary on how rules should be interpreted,” the president continued. “Because of these materials and the fact that these materials are too often hidden and hard to find, many Americans learn of the rules only when federal agents come knocking on the door.”
“Guidance documents” can take the form of blog posts, letters, brochures, and other forms of communications that aren’t proper federal regulations and don’t go through the public process for them.
The president added that a regulatory system like this “gravely undermines our constitutional system of government” and that “a permanent federal bureaucracy cannot become a fourth branch of government, unanswerable to American voters.”
The second executive order aims to protect people from secretive interpretations of existing regulations and unexpected penalties by requiring that no person should be subjected to regulatory enforcement “absent prior public notice of both the enforcing agency’s jurisdiction over particular conduct and the legal standards applicable to that conduct.”
Present at the signing event was Andy Johnson, a Wyoming rancher who, during the Obama administration, was surprised with $16 million in fines from the Environmental Protection Agency for trying to build a pond on his own property. The Obama administration eventually settled after the story and the resulting court case gained national attention.
“About five years ago, when I applied for a stock pond permit for my private property, I had no idea that the EPA would come knocking at my door and threaten me and my family — civilly, criminally, and a fine of $37,500 per day,” Johnson said at the ceremony. “We won our case, but unlike a lot of other middle class Americans, that’s not the case. … The litigation was way, way too expensive.”
In a statement to Blaze Media, acting Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought said that Wednesday’s orders “give this Administration the tools to defend Americans’ freedom and liberty against off-the-book regulations and prevent unfair penalties from being levied on American families and businesses by rogue agencies.”
