We believe in prayer: PRAY for Trump!
by Andrew McCarthy, National Review August 5, 2017
It’s a long way from here to there, but don’t be surprised if that’s where we’re headed. The principal function of a federal grand jury is to investigate a suspected crime with an eye toward returning an indictment — a formal accusation of felony misconduct. In the alternative, a grand jury may file a “no true bill,” a formal finding that the prosecutor failed to show probable cause that the subject of the investigation committed a crime.
Sometimes, however, to vote yea or nay on a proposed indictment is not the grand jury’s only option. In certain situations, federal law authorizes a grand jury to file a report detailing its findings, even if criminal charges are not forthcoming. One such situation involves investigations of public officials. Instead of returning an indictment, a grand jury may issue a report that recommends an official’s removal from office.
These columns have lamented the Justice Department’s assignment of a prosecutor to investigate the president without specifying a crime or the factual basis for a criminal investigation. We’ve also observed that no indictable crime is required to trigger impeachment proceedings. Neither, we now note, is a provable crime a prerequisite for the issuance of a grand-jury report.
Thus, the question arises: Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s impaneling of a new grand jury in Washington step one in the impeachment of President Donald Trump? By statute (Section 3333 of Title 18, U.S. Code), a grand jury’s report may address (my italics): noncriminal misconduct, malfeasance, or misfeasance in office involving organized criminal activity by an appointed public officer or employee as the basis for a recommendation of removal or disciplinary action.
READ it HERE
by Stanley Kurtz National Review Online July 31, 2017
With Governor Roy Cooper (D) taking no action on the bill, the state of North Carolina has enacted the Restore Campus Free Speech Act, the first comprehensive campus free-speech legislation based on the Goldwater proposal. That proposal, which I co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizona’s Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states. It’s fitting that North Carolina should be the first state to enact a Goldwater-inspired law.
North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has been the guiding force behind the Restore Campus Free Speech Act and deserves great credit for moving it through the legislature. I’m particularly grateful to Forest, with whom I’ve been working since shortly after I laid out “A Plan to Restore Free Speech on Campus” here at NRO in late 2015. Forest and his staff provided critical early encouragement and support for the approach that eventuated in the Goldwater model bill. With the passage of the first state law based on that model, Forest has established himself as a national leader on campus free speech.
The final version of the North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act passed by a margin of 80 to 31 in the House, with 10 Democratic ayes (about a quarter of the Democrats present). The final version passed the Senate by a margin of 34 to 11 along strict party lines. Given the intense party polarization in North Carolina, the substantially bipartisan House vote was impressive. Governor Cooper’s decision to let the bill become law with no action is also interesting and instructive.
The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act achieves most of what the Goldwater proposal sets out to do. It ensures that University of North Carolina policy will strongly affirm the importance of free expression. It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers whom members of the campus community wish to hear from. It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others, and ensures that students will be informed of those sanctions at freshman orientation. It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. And it authorizes a special committee created by the Board of Regents to issue a yearly report to the public, the regents, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.
Although the University managed to weaken the bill at points, with one significant exception that weakening amounts to less than meets the eye. Some of the bill’s language on institutional neutrality was struck, for example, yet the law still affirms the importance of administrative neutrality.
The dependence of campus freedom of speech on institutional neutrality was famously affirmed by the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report of 1967. Likewise, the annual reports on campus free expression to be released in North Carolina will assess the university’s successes or failures at maintaining a posture of institutional neutrality. This will discourage the University from, say, joining the “fossil fuel” divestment campaign, or the campaign to boycott, divest, and sanction the state of Israel.
The University did manage to weaken the “cause of action” provision, which would have allowed anyone whose expressive rights under the new law were violated to recover reasonable court costs and attorney’s fees. However, individuals whose rights under the new law are violated still have the option of suing, and can turn to any number of organizations (e.g. the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Center for Individual Rights, or the Goldwater Institute) for representation. READ the Rest HERE
By M.D. Kittle MacIver News Service | July 27, 2017
[Madison, Wis...] There's been a lot of hoopla about Foxconn Technology Group's White House announcement Wednesday that it plans to build a massive factory in southeast Wisconsin. And there should be.
But Foxconn's proposed $10 billion development and the tens of thousands of jobs it is eventually expected to spur does not happen without three things:
- Conservative reforms over the past 6 1/2 years
- Wisconsin Republicans' very prominent seats at the national political table
- President Donald Trump's passionate pursuit to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, and his keen interest in vacant Kenosha land where a Chrysler/American Motors plant once stood.
Of course, $3 billion in taxpayer-funded incentives doesn't hurt, either.
There's been a lot of political bow-taking in the past day. Some deserve to. Some don't.
Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans running the state Legislature truly have opened Wisconsin for business since sweeping into power in 2011. They promised and delivered on billions of dollars in tax relief, robust regulatory reform, and a pledge to restore power to taxpayers. Those reforms opened the eyes to business, that the Badger State is a place to expand and locate - not flee, as Illinois firms have been doing amid mounting state debt and record tax hikes.
"We have created this environment where companies are looking to Wisconsin," state Sen. Leah Vukmir, (R-Brookfield) told MacIver News Service Wednesday on the Vicki McKenna Show (Newstalk 1130 WISN).
Vukmir recalls the hostile days of Wisconsin's Act 10 debate, when big labor and their friends on the left crammed the Capitol to disrupt Walker's state collective bargaining reform initiative that has saved taxpayers billions and signaled to the world that reformers of big government meant business. Act 10 nearly cost Walker and several conservative senators their jobs. Their political survival emboldened conservative lawmakers across the country, convincing them that they could successfully challenge the bureaucracy status quo.
"I remember sitting in that room off the Senate chambers, just the Republican senators in our caucus listening to the vuvuzelas and the chanting and on and on and on," Vukmir said. "There was so much pressure for us not to make the right decision. I remember standing up and talking to my colleagues and saying, 'We cannot back down. If we do, no other state will consider doing the reforms we are trying to do here.'" READ it HERE
By Jessica Murphy, MacIver Institute July 24, 2017
Democrats who try to work across the aisle could face a bleak future - Rep. Daniel Riemer (D-Milwaukee) is living proof.
Rep. Jesse Kremer (R-Kewaskum) spoke with MacIver News to explain what happened. Kremer says he first asked Rep. Evan Goyke (D-Milwaukee) to work with him on the Campus Free Speech Act. Goyke suggested that free speech may be more up Riemer's alley since he graduated from the University of Chicago - the matriarch of free speech principles.
Some of Kremer's caucus members were hesitant at first, questioning Riemer's motives and wondering "what's he trying to pull?" Kremer insisted that his goal was to try to get the bill "to the point where both sides of the aisle could...agree on some things...and at the same time we're not compromising our bill, but that we think our entire caucus would vote for."
The morning of June 21st, the day of the bill's assembly vote, Riemer pulled Kremer out of caucus to bounce ideas around on how to improve the bill. Kremer commented that "some of his ideas weren't that bad, they actually made the bill better, strongerKremer quote rogue democrat amendment even." As they worked in the back of the parlor, Rep. Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) and Rep. Chris Taylor (D-Madison) were "hovering around, watching us, kind of like vultures...but [Riemer] kept working."
Things got dicey when Kremer went to the floor to introduce his new amendment to the bill, which revised the Council on Free Expression to give the Board of Regents oversight rather than directing them to create a separate committee. Kremer said that "Barca flew off the handle because he said we don't know anything about this... We said that we were working with someone on his side of the aisle that had an amendment that we thought we wanted to vote for. [The Democrats] said there is absolutely no way there's a rogue Democrat amendment that [they] are going to even consider and [they] don't want this being brought up."
When Barca called for informal session to review the new amendment, Kremer "heard Chris Taylor was just screaming at Rep. Riemer. [Democrats] were cursing him out on the floor when we had taken that break. They were all over hovering around his desk. After this all happened I looked over at him and he was sitting there with his head down for the next hour and I thought he had just given up and he was just beat back, but no. He came over to my side of the room...and he brings the amendment over to me, says I've been reviewing this...and it looks good to go." READ it HERE
For immediate release:
July 20, 2017
Republican Party of Dane County
[email protected] / 608-709-0478
Representing the third largest Republican vote in the state of Wisconsin, the Republican Party of Dane County (RPDC) is proud to reaffirm our support of President Trump’s key three agenda items: health-care reform, tax reform, and immigration reform. In a resolution passed recently by the Executive Committee of the county party, we are looking for action on these critical areas by the end of 2017 so that all Americans can realize the benefits of these reforms.
The Dane County Republican Party of Wisconsin calls on the Congress of the United States to approve President Donald Trump’s top three agenda items, health-care reform, tax reform, and immigration reform, no later than December 31 of this year.
We believe reform is critical to the nation.
All are Vital to the Economy. All three items are vital to restoring and growing the economy. Since the ship of the economy requires time to get to full power after these agenda policies are passed, it is critical they be completed by the end this year or sooner.
By MI President Brett Healy | July 18, 2017 MacIver Institute
[Madison, Wisc...] Looking to get stalled budget negotiations "back on track," Senate Republicans on Tuesday rolled out a budget blueprint that, not surprisingly, looks a good deal like Gov. Scott Walker's two-year spending plan - but built on heftier borrowing.
Now, said Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, the budget ball is back in the GOP-led Assembly's court.
"My point is to try to get the process back on track," said the Juneau Republican, surrounded by seven members of his caucus at a Capitol press event that, like the budget process, was delayed.
The budget plan and the accompanying press conference were manifestations of a Senate caucus that has been toiling in recent weeks to complete the people's business, even as the Assembly has lacked a "sense of urgency," Fitzgerald asserted.
Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke, R-Kaukauna, was less than impressed.
"There was nothing new in anything that they said. I found that kind of surprising. I thought there would be some kind of revelation," Steineke told MacIver News Service.
Indeed, much is the same. The Senate plan includes the budget items already approved by the Legislature's budget committee, staying true to much of the governor's 2017-19 budget proposal.
The Senate trims about $427 million in all-funds spending from Walker's version, with help in part from a reduction in 400-plus state jobs (255 of them at DOT). And it leans a lot heavier on borrowing than Walker's original $500 million transportation bonding proposal. The Senate's $712 million ask is significantly higher than the Republican governor's $300 million transportation bonding compromise deal offered earlier this month as a negotiations spur. READ the REST
by Anna Giaritelli Washington Examiner | Jul 17, 2017,
The significant downturn in the number of illegal border crossers between the U.S. and Mexico is "nothing short of miraculous," National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd said on C-SPAN Monday.
"As far as the Trump administration's efforts on immigration, this is something they campaigned heavily on," he said. "At six months, where we are on meeting those promises, we are seeing nothing short of miraculous. If you look at the rhetoric that President Trump has given, it has caused a number of illegal border crossings to go down. We have never seen such a drop that we currently have."
"There's a vibe, there's an energy in the Border Patrol that's never been there before in 20 years that I've been in the patrol," Judd added in a separate Fox News interview.
This month, Customs and Border Protection reported a 53 percent decrease in the number of apprehensions at the southwest border since last year. The number also includes those deemed inadmissible. CBP sees apprehensions as a proxy for how many people are trying to cross the border, and says the drop in apprehensions indicates a drop in attempted illegal crossings.
Judd said the Trump administration commanded in two executive orders for border agents to fully carry out related laws, while the Obama administration kept agents from doing their jobs as was intended.
The nonpartisan Border Patrol union endorsed Trump during last year's election, making it the first time it backed a presidential candidate, a move Judd said was done "strictly based upon border security." READ the REST
President Trump and his wife, Melania, arrived at Paris Orly Airport on Thursday. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, had invited Mr. Trump to a Bastille Day celebration. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
By THE NEW YORK TIMES JULY 13, 2017
The following are excerpts, as prepared and released on Thursday by the White House, from a conversation aboard Air Force One between President Trump and members of the press corps as they flew to Paris on Wednesday night.
The conversation was initially thought by the journalists to be off the record. However, the White House changed the terms of the exchange after Mr. Trump asked the pool reporter, who works for The New York Times, why it was not covered and she informed him that the journalists believed they were not allowed to use the material.
Note: Asterisks and ellipses denote sections of the president’s conversation that were left out by the White House.
On the visit to France:
Q When were you last in Paris? When were you last in France?
THE PRESIDENT: So I was asked to go by the President, who I get along with very well, despite a lot of fake news. You know, I actually have a very good relationship with all of the people at the G20. And he called me, he said, would you come, it’s Bastille Day — 100 years since World War I. And I said, that’s big deal, 100 years since World War I. SO we’re going to go, I think we’re going to have a great time, and we’re going to do something good. And he’s doing a good job. He’s doing a good job as President.
On North Korea, China, and trade:
THE PRESIDENT: A big thing we have with China was, if they could help us with North Korea, that would be great. They have pressures that are tough pressures, and I understand. And you know, don’t forget, China, over the many years, has been at war with Korea — you know, wars with Korea. It’s not like, oh, gee, you just do whatever we say. They’ve had numerous wars with Korea.
They have an 8,000 year culture. So when they see 1776 — to them, that’s like a modern building. The White House was started — was essentially built in 1799. To us, that’s really old. To them, that’s like a super modern building, right? So, you know, they’ve had tremendous conflict over many, many centuries with Korea. So it’s not just like, you do this. But we’re going to find out what happens.
Very important to me with China, we have to fix the trade. We have to fix the trade. And I’ve been going a little bit easier because I’d like to have their help. It’s hard to go ***. But we have to fix the trade with China because it’s very, very none-reciprocal. READ MORE HERE