Big govt, Courts, Politics

Trump Administration Takes Ax to Union Dues Skimming

A few weeks ago the Supreme Court released a number of landmark decisions, among which was an end to forced union dues for employees who choose not to become union members. That decision is providing support for the Trump administration’s axing of an Obama-era rule that allowed states to skim funds off the top of Medicaid stipends to workers, which were being funneled to unions. If the rule is upheld, that practice will come to a swift end. In its wake, workers will be able to keep more of their own money, and unions will have less of it to give to Democrats running for office. It’s a win-win.

Here’s more from The Daily Signal…

Sally Coomer of Seattle, who cares for her disabled adult daughter at home, doesn’t like the fact that union dues are deducted from the Medicaid payment she gets for her services under a Washington state policy.

“The money that is taken out in union dues, if it was not siphoned off, could be used to provide for more care,” Coomer told The Daily Signal about the Medicaid stipend given to home care providers.

“A lot of family members forgo careers to take care of family members and are working in situations where they are really financially struggling,” she said.

Washington is one of 11 states where the state governments work with public-sector unions to automatically deduct a portion of the Medicaid stipend and divert it to unions representing state employee unions.

The other states are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, according to the State Policy Network, a conservative think tank that focuses on state issues.

Big govt, Courts, Politics

Pres. Trump Blasts Released FBI FISA App

President Trump took to Twitter yesterday to blast the FBI FISA Warrant application, which was released to the public over the weekend. The documents were heavily redacted but included plenty of information to corroborate Republicans’ arguments that the FISA Warrant on Trump adviser Carter Page was based on dubious ‘intelligence’ cobbled together by biased FBI agents in concert with Chris Steele, who also happened to be colluding with the DNC and the Hillary campaign. And let’s remember that the entire impetus for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was based on the possibility of collusion with Russia which was alleged in the FISA Warrant. This house of cards is about to crumble, folks.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

President Donald Trump highlighted Monday the revelation of the FISA warrant used to spy on one of his foreign policy advisers Carter Page.

The heavily redacted set of documents were released to the public on Saturday, revealing that the unverified dossier created by Christopher Steele and paid for by the DNC was used to spy on the Trump campaign.

“So we now find out that it was indeed the unverified and Fake Dirty Dossier, that was paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that was knowingly & falsely submitted to FISA and which was responsible for starting the totally conflicted and discredited Mueller Witch Hunt!” Trump marveled on Twitter.

The president cited Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton who appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss the newly published information.

It was classified to cover up misconduct by the FBI and the Justice Department in misleading the Court by using this Dossier in a dishonest way to gain a warrant to target the Trump Team. This is a Clinton Campaign document. It was a fraud and a hoax designed to target Trump and the DOJ, FBI and Obama Gang need to be held to account. Source #1 was the major source. Avoided talking about it being the Clinton campaign behind it. Misled the Court to provide a pretext to SPY on the Trump Team. Not about Carter Page..was all about getting Trump. Carter Page wasn’t a spy, wasn’t an agent of the Russians – he would have cooperated with the FBI. It was a fraud and a hoax designed to target Trump.

Trump argued that the information was enough to shut down the investigation led by Special Cousel Robert Mueller.

Big govt, Courts, Politics

Strzok and Khizr Khan

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok told joint Judiciary and Oversight committees Thursday that his “We’ll stop it” text was in reference to then-candidate Donald Trump’s election. The trigger: candidate Trump’s remarks about restricting the entrance of Muslims from terror nations into the U.S. as hyperbolized by Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father of Army Capt. Humayun Khan who died while serving in Iraq. The trouble is there isn’t much context within or without the text transcript to bolster that claim. Just about anything could be attributed to the ‘it’ in question. But there’s plenty of other context to demonstrate a concerted effort by the FBI to ‘stop’ Trump’s election, period.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok told a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees today that a text to his then-lover, FBI attorney Lisa Page, about stopping candidate Donald Trump was anger expressed in response to Trump verbally going after Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan.

The Khans spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention to challenge Trump on comments he made on the campaign trail about restricting the entrance of Muslims into the country. Their son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in Baqubah, Iraq, on June 8, 2004, as he stopped a suicide bomber from driving into a compound.

In August 2016, Page texted Strzok, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” The Justice Department’s inspector general determined that while texts between the two were inappropriate, investigators “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.”

“I think it’s important when you look at those texts that you understand the context in which they were made and the things that were going on across America,” Strzok told the committee. “In terms of the text ‘we will stop it,’ you need to understand that was written late at night, off the cuff and it was in response to a series of events that included then-candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero, and my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the American population would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States.”


Brent Bozell, Courts, Media

The Media vs. Brett Kavanaugh

Supreme Court retirements under President Donald Trump cause an extra measure of heartburn for Democrats. They nominated Hillary Clinton and her seven-mile train of scandalous baggage for president, and that’s jake. They elected Bill Clinton as president, who perjured himself and sullied his office. Not a problem.

The one guarantee with Trump appointing Judge Brett Kavanaugh is that the Democrats, fueled by their mindless street mobs, will try to destroy him. It’s how Democrats behave. It is not how the “news” media should behave. Is there anyone who disputes that? But it is how they will comport themselves, because they are one with their Democratic brothers and sisters.

One by one, leftist Democrats have been making preposterous comments since the moment Trump made his announcement. Sen. Kamala Harris, for instance, immediately described Kavanaugh as a deadly threat, saying, “his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.”

The “news” media reaction to Democratic rants? Nothing but airtime.

Leftist websites like the Daily Beast presented Trump’s short list of candidates as a plot by “Catholic fundamentalist” puppet masters. Where are the news reports about Kavanaugh being slandered for his Catholic faith? To beat this old saw, what if National Review had attacked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s nomination as a plot led by Zionist puppet masters? You could have heard journalist heads explode.

Instead, reporters like NPR’s Nina Totenberg — who not only smeared Associate Justice Clarence Thomas with unsubstantiated sexual harassment bilge but also openly allies herself in public appearances with Justice Ginsburg these days — are warning that Kennedy’s retirement will be the “end of the world as we know it,” leading to “a hardcore conservative majority of a kind not seen probably in three-quarters of a century.”

To conservatives, that sounds great. But this reaction underlines why people don’t trust the liberal-media fun house anymore. Under President Barack Obama, the Democrats tried to socialize health care with Obamacare. They pushed same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court imposed it on 50 states. Obama also imposed radical federal “guidance” on public schools with “inclusive” policies for transgender students.

Our liberal TV anchors and taxpayer-funded Totenbergs never described all this as the “end of the world as we know it.” It wasn’t the work of a “hardcore leftist” administration. But now the idea of reversing any of this is called a shift “sharply to the right.”

When Obama nominated then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor and then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the court, no journalists talked about extremes. They gushed like schoolgirls. Try ABC’s Claire Shipman (Mrs. Jay Carney) on Sotomayor nine years ago. This sounds like an Obama campaign advertisement: “Even as a little girl, growing up in a drug-ridden South Bronx housing project, stricken with juvenile diabetes, she had that trademark knack: Instead of seeing dead ends, young Sonia saw possibilities. … She’s also an avid Yankees fan, a mean guacamole maker and a fierce biker.”

Sotomayor sits at the left-wing extreme of the Supreme Court, but at her confirmation hearings, the networks were in denial. Jan Crawford Greenburg at ABC said, “Sotomayor … calmly, persistently, repeatedly … described herself differently, sounding almost conservative.”

But any research seems to bring us back to the eternally shameless Totenberg. She said of Sotomayor, “In fact, on a lot of criminal law issues, you could say that she’s more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia.”

When Kagan was nominated in 2010, Totenberg took to NPR and — we’re not making this up — put on the theme song of the “Superman” TV show from the ’50s to compare Kagan, the former Harvard Law School dean, to Superman: “Kagan, who can raise money by the millions! Kagan, who can end the faculty wars over hiring! Kagan, who won the hearts of students … !”

They are about to show the world what first-class hypocrites they really are.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at


Courts, Politics

Kavanaugh’s Gun-Rights Record Shines

While the Left shrieks over the hypothetical overturning of Roe v. Wade, they are forgetting another, more realistic and near-term problem for their progressive agenda: Brett Kavanaugh, 53, is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. Among his career highlights from over a decade as a judge is his dissenting opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia. In it, Kavanaugh argued that the Supreme Court had already decided handguns — “the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic” — are constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment. Not so good for the gun grabbers.
Here’s more from Fox News…


Hundreds of Brett Kavanaugh’s decisions are now in the spotlight after President Trump formally selected him Monday night to fill retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat.

Kavanaugh, 53, formerly clerked for Kennedy and was elevated to the powerful federal appeals court in the District of Columbia by former President George W. Bush, under whom he had also served as a White House lawyer and staff secretary.

In his 12 years as a judge, Kavanaugh has issued approximately 300 opinions and delivered numerous speeches and legal arguments. Among them is his dissenting opinion on a pivotal gun ban in 2001.

In Heller v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the District’s ordinance banning most semi-automatic rifles. But in that case, Kavanaugh wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing the Supreme Court had already decided handguns – “the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic” – are constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment.

He said despite gun violence in the area, “our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principles or policy.”

The Supreme Court eventually took the case and struck down the ordinance; it held that the Second Amendment protects the possession of semi-automatic weapons for purposes unrelated to militia use.

Big govt, Courts, Politics

Six Potential Candidates Lead the SCOTUS Short-List

With just days before President Trump’s anticipated July 9th announcement of his choice for Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the running list of 25 has six particular standouts.

That list includes: Amy Coney Barrett, Tom Hardiman, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Joan Larsen, Amul Thapar.

Note that half of the candidates could be spoilers for the left’s cries for more diversity on the bench.

The ages also could be a thorn in their collective side for decades to come given that most of them could serve for as many 30 years.

In short, this represents a worst case scenario for Dems. Next will be very interesting indeed.

Here’s more from The Daily Signal…

President Donald Trump is expected to announce July 9 his nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. In 2016, Trump put together a list of potential Supreme Court picks during his campaign for president and has amended it twice—bringing the current total to 25 highly qualified conservative individuals.

Although the list is brimming with top-notch individuals, there are a few whose names appear to be rising to the top. A look at the judicial records and writings of these men and women reveals insights into their perspectives on a wide array of issues.

Courts, Politics

Report: Trump Narrows List to Two SCOTUS Picks

A couple weeks shy of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s July 31 retirement, President Trump has unofficially narrowed his SCOTUS replacement picks to just two.
And reports indicate they are DC Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Chicago Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
The official nominee announcement is expected July 9th.
A 46-year-old female, Barrett would give merit to rumors that Trump is inclined toward longevity just as much as shutting up the Roe v. Wade opposition mob with ‘diversity’.
What’s more, she’s already run the gauntlet of Senate Democrat attacks and yet earned three Dem votes for her confirmation last year.
Which means they’d be hard-pressed to argue that somehow in the last few months she’s suddenly not qualified for the federal bench.
Here’s more from The Daily Wire…
According to CBS News, President Trump has narrowed his potential Supreme Court Justice picks to two federal judges: D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Chicago Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Sources say that Trump will reveal his official nominee in just one week, ahead of Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, which begins on July 31. CBS reports:

CBS News has learned that D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Chicago Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett are currently Mr. Trump’s leading contenders for the appointment to the nation’s highest court.

Kavanaugh and Barrett both appear on Mr. Trump’s list of 25 possible nominees and he’s said he plans to interview about half a dozen potential candidates before announcing his selection.

So what do we know about the two favorites? Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro provided a run-down of the top five leading candidates last week, which included both federal judges. Below are Shapiro’s summaries of the pros and cons of both candidates, along with some comments from a few other political analysts.

Courts, Politics

Trump in Fargo: GOP Senate ‘Critical’ for Securing SCOTUS

President Donald Trump is back on the campaign trail, this time hoping to throw his weight in favor of Republican victories across America.

At a rally in Fargo, ND, where incumbent Democrat Heidi Heitkamp is battling Republican candidate Kevin Cramer for the open U.S. Senate seat, Trump warned, “Democrats want judges who will rewrite the Constitution any way they want to do it, and take away your Second Amendment, erase your borders, throw open the jailhouse doors.”

He said he was flattered Kennedy chose to retire “during my term in office.”

And he’s right. A retirement after the November election would’ve been a roll of the dice given the possibility Democrats retake control of the Senate.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

President Donald Trump stressed the importance of nominating a constitutional originalist judge to the Supreme Court.

“The travel ban ruling underscores just how critical it is to confirm judges who will support our great Constitution,” he said.

The president campaigned in Fargo, North Dakota for Republican Senate candidate Kevin Cramer, who is challenging North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp.

Trump thanked Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy for his service to his country, noting his retirement announcement earlier Wednesday.

“I’m very honored he chose to do it during my term in office, because he felt confident in me to make the right choice and carry on his great legacy,” Trump said.

Trump said that he wanted to nominate a judge who could serve on the court for 40-45 years.

Courts, Economy & Investments

SCOTUS Stops Unions’ Financial Extortion of Workers

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that public sector unions will no longer be able to back up their forced union dues collections from government workers with the threat of employment termination.

It was a razor-thin 5-4 ruling to end the practice of your taxpayer dollars being forcibly collected…only to support the Democrat Party.

“Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning,” wrote Justice Alito.

“Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns.”

President Trump celebrated with a tweet: Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!

And now with the retirement of Justice Kennedy, President Trump will have an even more conservative court for more decisions like this one.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no government employee can be fired for refusing to financially support a union. The decision frees workers who do not wish to join a union from being forced to pay the union nevertheless. This will likely spark a massive exodus from the ranks of public sector unions, weakening the Democratic Party.

“States and public-sector unions may no longer exact agency fees from nonconsenting employees,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the 5-4 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch joined in his opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, and Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate dissent, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Bryer, and Sotomayor joined.

Big govt, Courts

Vindication: Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban

In yet another victory for the Constitution and America’s national security this week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold President Trump’s travel ban.

The ban targets mostly Muslim countries believed to be the sources of would-be terrorists but does not target ‘all’ Muslims or all Muslim nations.

Non-Muslim North Korea and Venezuela also made the cut undermining the Left’s opportunistic dramatics over the ‘Muslim ban’.

What’s more, it’s a slap in the face of all the liberal activist judges scavenging for opportunities to thwart the Trump administration.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban, restricting immigration from countries of terror concern. The ban, attacked by Democrats as the promised “Muslim ban,” survived a challenge from Hawaii.

The law “grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. The president lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings — following a worldwide, multi-agency review — that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest,” the Court ruled.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, in which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch joined. Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor each filed their own dissenting opinions, and Elena Kagan joined Breyer while Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Sotomayor.