Government Shuts Down as Democrats Block Continuation … CNN Poll Says DACA Not Worth the Shutdown

MAYBE REPUBLICANS WON’T GET BLAMED FOR SHUTDOWN AS USUAL … #SchumerShutdown

As the U.S. government shut down last night, actually only those jobs and individuals with non-essential functions. An interesting thing happened, many are actually holding Democrats responsible. A CNN poll states that 56% believe that DACA not worth a shutdown of the government, while just 34% choose DACA over a shutdown. The Democrats are the only ones who chose illegal aliens over American citizens and the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. Democrats break narrowly in favor of DACA as 49% say it’s more important vs. 42% who say avoiding a shutdown is the priority. However, majorities of both Republicans (75%) and independents (57%) say avoiding a shutdown is more important. It is easy to put forth a poll that says, who is to blame. Of course the LEFT and Never-Trumpers will always blame the Republicans and Trump. However, to ask the question as to was DACA worth shutting the government down is telling.

Democrats are going to have a hard time in 2018 telling the American people they first, did not want them to keep more of their own money with regards to Trump tax cut and now, that illegals are more important than American citizens.

With hours to go before a midnight deadline for Congress to fund the government or shut it down, most Americans say avoiding a shutdown is more important than passing a bill to maintain the program allowing people brought to the US illegally as children to stay, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

But Democrats taking a hard line on legislation connecting government funding to the popular program known as DACA appear to have the backing of their constituents, and more overall say President Donald Trump or the Republicans in Congress would be responsible for a shutdown if one happens.

Overall, about half of Americans say they would blame either Trump (21%) or his Republican counterparts in Congress (26%) should Congress fail to fund the government by the midnight Friday deadline. About a third, 31%, say they would hold the Democrats in Congress responsible, and another 10% say they’d blame all three groups. Among Republicans, 62% would blame the Democrats in Congress, while 43% of Democrats would blame Republicans on Capitol Hill and 29% would blame Trump.

Tucker Carlson Backs President Trump Amid ‘Sh*thole’ Furor: ‘Why Can’t You Say That?!’ (VIDEO)

Tucker Carlson asks, “Why can’t you say that?”

Fox News and President Donald Trump are not being racist when they say or ask these questions, they are being honest. I guarantee the Libs and the LEFT make the same comments, they just say it where no one can hear them. Could better words been used than sh*t hole, probably. But that is what most Americans would have said if you asked them. Sadly, these countries are not hell holes, third world countries, etc, because of the people who live there, they are because of their dictatorial leaders. Those in charge have exploited their countries resources and people. Seriously folks, have you taken a good look at Haiti lately? As Carlson said, “President Trump said something that almost  every American agrees with. An awful lot of immigrants come to this country from other places that aren’t very nice. Those places are dangerous, their dirty, their corrupt and they are poor. That is the main reason why those immigrants are trying to come here. And you would too.”

Very true. This is not racist. It is a socioeconomic issue.

Seriously folks, where would you rather live, Haiti or Norway? Haiti or the United States? The choice also should be asked for where would you rather vacation, study, retire or go on a honeymoon. If anyone said Haiti, you are being dishonest. I wonder how many people from Haiti who are refugees think Haiti is a hell hole?

A list of the UN’s Least Developed Countries. Hmm, is the UN now racist?

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of President Trump Travel Ban by a 7-2 Decision

ANOTHER WIN FOR TRUMP …

Yesterday, in a 7 -2 decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration travel ban by residents of six mostly Muslim countries. This is a huge victory for Trump, the rule of law and the safety of American citizens. This is a tremendous loss for Democrats and liberals who have no want or need to protect its citizens from outside hostile individuals. So much for all of the liberals who said Trump could not do such things like protect the United States of America. Although the decision is not final, it means that the ban can go into place while the cases are heard. With a 7-2 decision, it is most likely the ban will be upheld when the case is finally heard.  The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.

This is not a final ruling on the travel ban: Challenges to the policy are winding through the federal courts, and the justices themselves ultimately are expected to rule on its legality.

But the action indicates that the high court might eventually approve the latest version of the ban, announced by President Donald Trump in September. Lower courts have continued to find problems with the policy.

Just two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, noted their disagreement with court orders allowing the latest policy to take full effect.

The new policy is not expected to cause the chaos that ensued at airports when Trump rolled out his first ban without warning in January.

The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a “bona fide” relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.

Kate Steinle Murder Trial by Illegal Immigrant Begins … Opening Statements & Emotional Testimony From Father

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, KATE STEINLE WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY IF A PREVIOUSLY DEPORTED ILLEGAL ALIEN WAS NOT ALLOWED TO LIVE AND BE PROTECTED BY THE SANCTUARY CITY OF SAN FRANSISCO …

The Kate Steinle murder trial began yesterday. Opening statements have begun in the trial of an illegal immigrant Mexican man accused of fatally shooting an innocent legal U.S. female citizen on a San Francisco pier two years ago. The case set off a national immigration debate during last year’s presidential race on sanctuary cities and crimes committed against U.S. citizens. Illegal immigrant, 45 year old Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, has plead not guilty and while his attorneys claimed it was an accident.What is not in dispute is the following, Garcia Zarate had been deported five times and was homeless in San Francisco when he shot the 32-year-old Steinle. The illegal immigrant, who had no business being in the United States, had recently completed a prison sentence for illegal re-entry to the U.S. when he was transferred to the San Francisco County jail to face a 20-year-old marijuana charge. Prosecutors dropped that charge, and the San Francisco sheriff released Zarate from jail despite a federal immigration request to detain him for at least two more days for deportation. Maybe San Francisco should be put on trial for Kate Steinle’s death as well.

Kate Steinle (left) – Jose Ines Garcia Zarate (Rt)

The undocumented immigrant accused of shooting and killing Pleasanton native Kate Steinle was aiming toward her and knew what he was doing, a prosecutor argued Monday at the start of a politically charged murder case that sparked a nationwide debate over immigration policy.

But a defense attorney said Steinle’s death was the result of an accidental gunshot and a “freakish ricochet” of the bullet that struck her.

The trial of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, who allegedly shot 32-year-old Steinle on San Francisco’s Pier 14 in July 2015, kicked off on Monday with opening statements and brief but emotional testimony from Steinle’s father, who was walking with her during the shooting.

The closely watched case has attracted national attention because of its connection to immigration policy — Garcia Zarate, a Mexican citizen, was released from a San Francisco jail two and a half months before the shooting instead of being deported because of the city’s sanctuary city policy. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and other conservatives seized on the shooting as an argument for tougher immigration laws.

Garcia Zarate, 45, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, and his lawyers argue that the shooting was an accident — a single shot that ricocheted off the pier into Steinle’s back. The prosecution will try to convince jurors that Garcia Zarate shot recklessly at people, the standard necessary for a second-degree conviction.

Assistant District Attorney Diana Garcia started her at times dramatic opening statement by lifting up the gun, a plastic tag through its trigger.

UPDATE I: Father recalls shooting that killed daughter.

Through tears, the father of a woman killed on a San Francisco pier says he was walking with his daughter and a family friend when he heard a loud bang.

Jim Steinle testified Monday that his daughter Kate threw her arms open around him and asked for help before collapsing.

He says he rolled her onto her side and could see a bullet hole in her back. He says there was little blood.

During his campaign, President Donald Trump cited the shooting as a reason to toughen U.S. immigration policies.

Jim Steinle was the first witness to testify in the murder trial of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate.

He testified for about 10 minutes and Garcia Zarate’s lawyer declined to question him.

This has everything to do with sanctuary cities like San Fransisco and the allowing of illegals in the United States, protecting them and affording then rights as if they were U.S. citizens. If the family of Kate Steinle is not provided justice, there will be a backlash in the United States like the LEFT and sanctuary cities have ever seen. Make no mistake about it, NO JUSTICE … NO PEACE at the ballot boxes in 2018 or 2020.

President Trump Rescinds DACA that was Effectuated under the Obama Administration Unconstitutionally … President Gives Congress 6 Months to Do Thier Job

DACA RESCINDED … TRUMP GIVES CONGRESS 6 MONTHS TO ACT AND DO THEIR JOB.

Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions did his job and correctly rescinded the DACA program. No matter how you feel about the DACA program and so called “Dreamers,” DACA was was Unconstitutional. The United States is a country of laws and if we have presidents who flaunt the Constitution, as Barack Obama did, what is the point. If Trump did not end DACA, it would have been in the courts, as the executive branch does not have the right to bypass the legislative branch and make laws. Obama knew this, and even said so when president, then turned around and created DACA. Democrats and the LEFT can try and play politics with this, as they usually do, but in reality, Trump did the smart thing. Trump eliminated an Unconstitutional program and forwarded it to the U.S. Congress where such laws are supposed to be created. In is now on Congress to do their job.

This policy was implemented unilaterally to great controversy and legal concern after Congress rejected legislative proposals to extend similar benefits on numerous occasions to this same group of illegal aliens.

In other words, the executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.

As the Attorney General, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the Constitutional order is upheld.

Via FOX News:

In June of 2012, President Obama bypassed Congress to give work permits, social security numbers, and federal benefits to approximately 800,000 illegal immigrants currently between the ages of 15 and 36.  The typical recipients of this executive amnesty, known as DACA, are in their twenties.  Legislation offering these same benefits had been introduced in Congress on numerous occasions and rejected each time.

In referencing the idea of creating new immigration rules unilaterally, President Obama admitted that “I can’t just do these things by myself” – and yet that is exactly what he did, making an end-run around Congress and violating the core tenets that sustain our Republic.

Officials from 10 States are suing over the program, requiring my Administration to make a decision regarding its legality. The Attorney General of the United States, the Attorneys General of many states, and virtually all other top legal experts have advised that the program is unlawful and unconstitutional and cannot be successfully defended in court.

There can be no path to principled immigration reform if the executive branch is able to rewrite or nullify federal laws at will.

The temporary implementation of DACA by the Obama Administration, after Congress repeatedly rejected this amnesty-first approach, also helped spur a humanitarian crisis – the massive surge of unaccompanied minors from Central America including, in some cases, young people who would become members of violent gangs throughout our country, such as MS-13.

Only by the reliable enforcement of immigration law can we produce safe communities, a robust middle class, and economic fairness for all Americans.

Therefore, in the best interests of our country, and in keeping with the obligations of my office, the Department of Homeland Security will begin an orderly transition and wind-down of DACA, one that provides minimum disruption.  While new applications for work permits will not be accepted, all existing work permits will be honored until their date of expiration up to two full years from today.  Furthermore, applications already in the pipeline will be processed, as will renewal applications for those facing near-term expiration.  This is a gradual process, not a sudden phase out.  Permits will not begin to expire for another six months, and will remain active for up to 24 months.  Thus, in effect, I am not going to just cut DACA off, but rather provide a window of opportunity for Congress to finally act.