'In God We Trust' sign gets loud support amid outsiders' opposition

The display of "In God We Trust" motto on the Wentzville council podium sparked protests from anti-religion groups.  (Twitter)

A controversy in a St. louis suburb over the display of “In God We Trust” as a motto in the City Council chambers prompted hundreds of residents to rally in support of the sign on Wednesday after some residents and anti-religion groups complained.

The debate began last month after a woman – who was not from the area – was escorted out of a Wentzville council meeting after she protesting the display and exceeding her speaking-time limit.

“It’s offensive to a lot of people, I’m outspoken about it but there are a lot of people like me that are afraid to speak out publicly,” said Sally Hunt, of neighboring Maryland Heights, according to KMOV-TV. “It says ‘In God We Trust’ when it should say ‘in God some of us trust,” she added.
The motto has been on display on the council dais since the building’s opening in November last year. It was reportedly paid for with private funds.
The city was reportedly contacted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, which argued the sign should be removed.
“Your heavy-handed, dismissive treatment of Ms. Hunt — calling her a liar and then having her embarrassingly removed from the meeting by force — vividly demonstrates Ms. Hunt’s point that your constituents have good reason to be afraid to challenge the Board’s foisting of religion onto the rest of the community,” read the letter sent to the city, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported
But the controversy reached its peak Wednesday as hundreds of residents carrying signs reading “In God We Trust” gathered to inside Wentzville’s city hall to rally in favor of the display.
“When I heard our national motto was under question or under attack, I wanted to come here. I’m only one person, but I can pray,” local resident Mary Lou Rogers told the KMOV-TV.

"When I heard our national motto was under question or under attack, I wanted to come here. I’m only one person, but I can pray.”

“If you read the history of our country, it was founded on Christian moral values,” Ginger Yoak, a longtime resident of the city, told the Post-Dispatch. “And this motto doesn’t specify one particular religion, it can apply to different religions. This is our motto that represents our country’s values and I want to keep it.”
Most people at the gathering supported the display of the motto, but a dozen dissenting voices were heard, although met with loud boos.
“Religion is something personal. It should be at home, the people who are representing the people of Wentzville need to represent all of them, not everybody is a Christian,” Angie Molleck said at the gathering.
Mayor Nick Guccione said during the meeting that the sign became an issue only after he disclosed that the local Rotary Club and the local Kiwanis Club paid for the sign. He added that he consulted with legal experts about the sign and the board held a vote about the display, which was approved.
“The overwhelming majority is in support of what we’ve done,” he said. “I don’t understand why it is offensive, but you can’t please everybody,” he said Wednesday. “I will not take it down. I will stand strong on it. I do believe it’s our national motto and it promotes patriotism.”
Some people also criticized those opposing the display but not actually living in the area. “I’m just not interested in some outsider coming in and telling us we can’t have this motto,” said Wayne Stoehner.
Hunt, who began the controversy after being escorted out of the hall last month at the mayor’s request, also attended Wednesday's meeting to voice her opposition, saying some residents of the city do not support the sign and “value a separation of church and state.”
“They understand government is not a church,” she said. “Government should not advance religion.”
The audience booed Hunt’s remarks and counted down the final seconds of her allocated time limit.
The mayor stands behind the sign -- and there are no plans to scrap it.

California has worst 'quality of life' in US, study says

California has the worst quality of life in the U.S., according to a new study.

Awards season is in full swing in California, and the Golden State just took home a booby prize of its own.

California ranks dead last among U.S. states in quality of life, according to a study by U.S. News, ranking behind New Jersey (49th) and Indiana (48th).

The ignominious honor reflects California's low marks in the sub-categories of environmental quality and social engagement. The latter category measures voting participation and community bonds.
Californians scored poorly in part because they're simply insufferable, U.S. News suggested.
"In addition to a healthy environment, a person's quality of life is largely a result of their interactions with those around them," the magazine wrote in a blurb accompanying the results.
POST-BANKRUPTCY CALIFORNIA CITY TESTS 'UNIVERSAL' INCOME FOR RESIDENTS
U.S. News ranked each state in seven other areas, which were weighted based on a survey that determined their importance to the public: health care, education, economy, opportunity, infrastructure, crime and corrections, and fiscal stability.
In those categories, California finished No. 43 in fiscal stability, No. 46 in opportunity, and No. 38 in infrastructure. It posted relatively high marks in health care (11th), economy (4th), and crime and corrections (28th).
California ranked No. 32 among all U.S. states overall, behind New York (25th), New Jersey (19th), and Florida (15th).
Which state has the best quality of life?
Iowa, which scored highly in infrastructure and health care, took the top spot overall.

Dems Fixation on Trump Cartoons

Hillary Clinton to speak at Yale graduation event ( So funny )

Hillary Clinton, pictured here speaking at a campaign rally on Nov. 8, 2016, was announced as Yale's 2018 Class Day Speaker.

Yale University on Monday announced former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will speak at its prestigious “Class Day” ceremony.

The school’s Class Day co-chairs told the senior class Monday night that Clinton, a 1973 graduate of Yale Law School, would speak at the event in New Haven, Connecticut, on May 20, the Yale Daily News reported.

Class Day is scheduled the day before the Ivy League school’s commencement ceremony.
“When Secretary Clinton spoke at her Wellesley graduation in 1969, she told her class that their challenge was ‘to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible,’” event co-chair Josh Hochman told the student newspaper.
“The ‘impossible’ world Secretary Clinton imagined in 1969 is not yet won — yet it will be if our generation dares to emulate her life of resilient and courageous service," Hochman added.
Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have said they met at Yale’s law school in the spring of 1971.

The Clintons have said they met at Yale Law School in the spring of 1970.  (Clinton Digital Library)

The 2016 Democratic nominee for president joins a slew of former Obama administration officials who have spoken at the school’s event.
Former Vice President Joe Biden gave Yale’s Class Day address in 2015, and former Secretary of State John Kerry, of the 1966 Yale class, spoke at the school’s 2014 traditional event. Class of 1992’s Samantha Power, the former United Nations Ambassador, addressed the school’s Class Day in 2016.
Clinton's most recent commencement address was at the 2017 graduation ceremony of Wellesley College, from which she graduated in 1969.

Scary stuff: How fabricators attacked Miami paper after school shooting

I am not in favor of censorship.

And it's amazing that I have to say that, but there it is.

What I'm opposed to are the dissemination of fabrications, bogus conspiracy theories and fake propaganda accounts that cause damage to individuals, to groups and to our country.
When I spoke about this on the air, I quickly heard from folks who embrace some of these conspiracy theories and who flung the charge of censorship. I fully acknowledge, and have said before, that a crackdown on fakery and propaganda risks stomping on people's free speech rights. But I believe it's possible without undermining those rights, as long as one set of political views isn't unfairly targeted.
The temperature level has of course shot way up in the wake of the Florida school shooting. And now comes a dramatic case study from Miami.
McClatchy has a chilling report on one of its papers, the Miami Herald—chilling, that is, if you care about the future of journalism.
Some hacker managed to create "two fake tweets that looked like they came from the account of Alex Harris, a Herald reporter preparing tributes to the slain students. One fake tweet asked for photos of dead bodies at the school and another asked if the shooter was white."
Such tweets are designed to discredit the reporter and the newspaper through old-fashioned lies.
That wasn't all. The perpetrator also managed "to create a phony Miami Herald story — in the high tension following the Parkland shooting — saying that a Miami-Dade middle school faced threats of 'potentially catastrophic events' on upcoming dates, indicating that a new mass shooting was in the offing."
After screenshots of the fictitious story were shared on Twitter and Snapchat, Monique Madan, the Herald reporter whose byline was slapped on the story, said: "It looks super real. They use the same font that we use. It has our masthead. It has my byline. If I were't a journalist, I wouldn’t think twice about it."
And talk about real-world consequences. Of course parents, students and teachers at the middle school would be scared by such a story and blame the Herald for fomenting fear.
As technology makes it easier to create fake tweets, fake stories, even fake videos, the potential for undermining those who try to cover real news.
We've also seen stark evidence of this as the Russians, during and since the 2016 campaign, have used bots and bogus accounts to try to disrupt American politics, first to push Donald Trump’s candidacy and most recently to exploit divisions over the Florida shooting.
On Sunday’s "Media Buzz," I questioned why Facebook, Google, YouTube and other social media sites can't do a better job of cracking down on fakery and propaganda. They've all admitted shortcomings and promised to do better, but one reason is that they don't want to invest the substantial sums that it would take.
YouTube has apologized for inadvertently promoting a video calling Florida shooting survivor David Hogg an "actor." A 51-year-old Idaho man with under 1,000 followers posted footage of Hogg being interviewed by local TV last year for having witnessed a confrontation at a California beach—the clear implication being that he’s an actor who wasn’t really at the Parkland high school.
That video drew more than 200,000 views and hit No. 1 on YouTube before apologizing and deleting it for violating policies against bullying and harassment.
Conspiratorial stuff will always find an audience. But in an age when bad actors can use technology to literally fabricate the news, journalism outlets—including social media companies that profit from journalism—have to be constantly on guard.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Dems taking heat from allies for fixation on slamming tax cuts, Trump

Washington Democrats are taking heat from some of their biggest financial supporters over a midterm-election strategy still focused on bashing President Trump and the Republican tax cut plan – as recent polls suggest the party's candidates could be losing their edge. 

Congressional Democrats, just a couple months ago, thought they had a winning plan for taking control of the chamber by arguing the tax cuts were a gift to corporate supporters at the expense of the American worker. Within hours of the bill's passage, Democrats returned to their districts for the holidays, ready to trumpet the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s message of “House Republicans Sign Away Their Seats.”

However, the extra money in employee paychecks since early January, and bonuses related to the cuts, apparently are winning over voters.
Those outside the Capitol Hill bubble are taking note, and urging Democrats to reconsider their message.
“If we spend all of our cycle running against the tax bill, it’s probably going to be a mistake,” Julie Greene, a former Democratic National Committee aide who now leads midterm campaign efforts for the AFL-CIO, recently said.
The most recent RealClearPolitics average of “generic” ballot polls -- asking voters which party they prefer in congressional races -- shows Democrats with a roughly 7-percentage-point lead over Republicans, compared with 13 points the day after Congress approved the tax law.
And a new Morning Consult/Politico poll showed Republicans leading by 1 percentage point, after trailing for three months.
Trump also has taken note of the polls, as Democrats try to win a total two-dozen seats to retake the House majority they lost in 2010.
“Republicans are now leading the Generic Poll, perhaps because of the popular Tax Cuts which the Dems want to take away. Actually, they want to raise you taxes, substantially,” the president tweeted Tuesday.
Gallup, meanwhile, announced that Americans’ satisfaction with the direction of the country was its highest since before Trump became president in November 2016, saying the impact of the cuts -- as seen on employees’ “first pay stubs” -- was a potential factor.
“This is a terrible idea for Democrats to run on,” Rory McShane, a Republican political media consultant, said Tuesday. “The tax plan is benefitting most Americans. Everybody knew it was going to be like an extra 50 bucks in each paycheck. But that pays a cellphone bill. That just shows you the world in which Democratic leadership doesn’t live.”
Republicans already are trying to tie 2018 Democratic candidates to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s recent comment that employee bonuses as a result of the tax cuts amount to “crumbs.”
McShane speculated that by Election Day, the cuts likely won’t impact the well-paid, well-educated “suburban” swing voters that pollsters frequently say decide elections. “But they will likely make Trump’s base happy that they put him in office and make them want to vote the same way in 2018,” he said.
Meanwhile, Priorities USA, the major Democratic super PAC that backed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns, issued a memo last week raising concerns about whether the party has become too focused -- or perhaps too refocused -- on reacting to Trump, according to Politico.
Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan told Politico the memo was "spot on."
"There are some real issues that we need to pound -- and I mean pound relentlessly -- if we are going to win the districts we need to win in," said Ryan, who has been critiical of House leadership.

The offices for House Democratic leaders and the DCCC, whose mission is to get the chamber's Democratic candidates elected and reelected, have not responded to requests for comment for this report.
Washington Democrats acknowledge that their failures in 2016 to keep the White House or retake the House were in large part the result of a campaign platform relying too much on opposing Trump and failing to connect with Middle America voters.
The party last year announced its “Better Deal” platform, an effort to create more better-paying, full-time jobs for Americans. This past fall, House Democratic leaders announced their related “Jobs for America Task Force,” though the idea of attacking Trump still appeared to be on their minds.
“We all know our agenda just can’t be against Donald Trump, as alluring as that may be,”’ said New York Rep. Joe Crowley, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “We will create a jobs package that our members can advocate for in this Congress and beyond.”

Dem-olition Derby: Glut of candidates has party at war with itself

The throngs of Democratic candidates jumping into the 2018 congressional contests in hopes of 'resisting' President Trump have in turn fueled a nasty war within the party -- a fight that has seen incumbents scorned as primary fields swell. 

This was witnessed most recently over the weekend, when the California Democratic Party declined to endorse Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bid for a sixth term.

But in California and beyond, Democrats are experiencing internal tensions similar to what Republicans went through during the Tea Party wave of 2010. The open question: will they replicate the GOP's success of that cycle, or crumble amid their own divisions?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has struggled to lock down support from the state party this year.  (Reuters)

One potential risk is that moderate candidates will be pushed aside, in favor of liberal candidates who might not be as electable in a general election.
CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY WON'T ENDORSE FEINSTEIN
In Illinois, at least four Capitol Hill Democrats have endorsed the primary challenger over incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski, a moderate seeking an eight term.
Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, one of the four to back challenger Marie Newman, acknowledged the unusual, bare-knuckle move, while arguing it was necessary to show his party has “a response in the age of Donald Trump.”

Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez came out against a fellow Democratic incumbent.

“It’s not easy to endorse a challenger over a colleague in the House of Representatives, especially when that colleague is a member of your party,” Gutierrez told Capitol Hill reporters, when he and fellow Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky last month endorsed Newman, a businesswoman and first-time candidate.
Schakowsky also is a part of the leadership team for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has yet to endorse Lipinski over the more liberal Newman, with the party primary less than a month away.
Newman also has an endorsement from potential 2020 presidential candidate and New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and touts support from many of the progressive movement's biggest names -- including feminist icon Gloria Steinem, Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, the Service Employees International Union and Indivisible, leaders in the resist-Trump movement.
“I don’t think we’ve ever seen this type of robust involvement by national Democrats picking winners and losers in their own primaries,” Caleb Burns, a partner in the Washington law firm Wiley Rein and who specializes in election law, said Monday.
The California Democratic Party's Feinstein snub reflected another such intra-party battle.
At the group’s annual convention, members gave Feinstein 37 percent of the vote, compared with 57 percent for state Senate leader Kevin de Leon. However, de Leon, a favorite of the state party’s progressive wing, didn’t get the endorsement either because he failed to garner the required 60 percent of the vote.
“With how far to the left the party has lurched, Democrats who do qualify for the general [election] are likely to be too extreme for their districts,” Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Ahrens said Sunday, echoing what moderate Democrats are purportedly telling DCCC leaders. “California Democrats made it clear that even Dianne Feinstein … is not nearly liberal enough for them anymore.”
Nowhere is the challenge of a candidate overload more glaring than in California, where the DCCC has targeted at least eight Republican-held House seats on their path to win a total of 24 and take control of the chamber.
However, the flood of Democratic candidates eager to capitalize on anti-Trump sentiment and the Republican-controlled Congress’ low approval ratings has created headaches for the DCCC, particularly in Orange County.
The group, whose mission is to get Democrats elected and re-elected to the House, has been hand-wringing for months over the situation. Group polling suggests so many Democrats are running in California’s top-two primary system that the splintered votes could hurt their ability to reach the general election, The Los Angeles Times reports.
Four races in Orange County were at the top of Democrats’ midterm list, considering 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won the conservative stronghold for the party for the first time in about 80 years -- in large part the result of the state’s Hispanic population migrating south from greater Los Angeles.
But in two 2018 races -- against incumbent GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and retiring GOP Rep. Ed Royce -- eight Democrats have entered the fray.
A source tells Fox News that House Democrats focused on the midterms are at least suggesting to some candidates to withdraw.
The situation in Texas’s 7th Congressional District appears even more sharp-elbowed, with the DCCC openly opposing candidate Laura Moser, one of at least six Democrats running in a district Clinton also wrested from the GOP.
“Democratic voters need to hear that Laura Moser is not going to change Washington,” the group said last week. “She is a Washington insider, who begrudgingly moved to Houston to run for Congress.”
The DCCC also says in its website post that Moser as of last month was still claiming her Washington property as her primary residence to get a tax break and that she’s paid her husband’s D.C. political consulting firm more than $50,000 from campaign contributions.
“Whatever happens, I will continue to run a campaign on the issues, a campaign worthy of my daughter and all our daughters,” Moser, who this past weekend had actress Alyssa Milano on the campaign trail, responded on Twitter.
The DCCC has yet to respond to a request Monday for comment.
Beyond riding the anti-Trump sentiment, Washington Democrats are also relying on historical tailwinds to give them the House majority for the first time since 2010, considering the party that holds the White House typically loses about 30 seats in the first post-presidential race midterm.
However, recent generic ballot polls, in which likely voters say whether they’d prefer a Democrat or Republican for Congress, show Democrats’ big leads now down to single digits -- particularly after the GOP tax cuts.
“I think the tax bill is going to be a great benefit to Republican incumbents,” Burns also said. “They’re now able to explain a complicated law by pointing to the money that companies are putting back in people’s pockets. Voters can now see the results in structured, measurable ways.”
The conservative opposition research group America Rising said Monday: “As these contests unfold across the country, one thing is clear: Giddy talk of a coming ‘blue wave’ must be tempered with the ugly reality that the eventual Democratic nominees will not come out of these contests unscathed."

DACA Cartoons

Rep. Mac Thornberry: We need a strong vibrant economy to fund our military

This 2007 image shows two U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor aircraft during a training mission.  (AP/ U.S. Air Force) 

The primary job of the federal government is to provide for the common defense, yet today only 15 percent of the budget is devoted to that task.  While our military personnel will always try to do whatever is asked of them, years of inadequate and unpredictable funding have taken a real toll.  Much of their equipment is old and worn out, and too often they have not been getting the training they need to do what the nation asks.  In 2017 about four times as many service members lost their lives in routine training and operations than in hostile actions.

Defense Secretary James Mattis testified recently that “our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare – air, land, sea, space, and cyber.”  Others have put our position compared with rival states, such as Russia and China, in much starker terms.  There can be little doubt that this erosion of American military strength has encouraged a variety of adversaries to be more aggressive and that the world has grown more dangerous as a result.

The budget agreement recently passed by Congress and signed into law begins to reverse this decline.  At the same time, sufficient resourcing comes with additional responsibility, for both the Congress and the Department of Defense.  While the added funding will allow us to begin to repair our planes, ships, and equipment, we must also continue to drive significant reforms needed within the Department and other agencies to stay ahead of rapidly changing technologies and a wide range of current and anticipated future threats.  In addition, the first full audit of the Department will occur this year, which will help uncover areas for financial improvement.
Over the past three years, Congress has enacted significant reforms with strong bipartisan support. We have modernized military benefits, reorganized much of the Defense bureaucracy, and reformed the way the Pentagon buys goods and services. All of this was done with a goal of making the Pentagon, and especially the acquisition system, more agile.  As a result, anyone entering military service today will witness these reforms, over the course of their career, save the taxpayer billions. We have more work to do, and top officials in the Department seem willing to work with Congress towards this important goal. 

A military starved of resources, training, and equipment will not long be able to protect the country physically or economically.

Still, some have opposed restoring military budgets by trying to revive the old “guns versus butter” debate.  In fact, American economic prosperity and our national security are more like the chicken and the egg – we cannot have one without the other.
We need a strong, vibrant economy to produce the tax revenue to fund our military.  We also need economic growth and innovation to ensure that our military technology stays ahead of authoritarian, directed economies like China’s that can force a whole-of-nation effort against us.
But a strong military is also an essential prerequisite to a healthy economy and to our quality of life.  Since World War II, the rules-based international order created and maintained by the United States has benefited peoples around the globe and none more so than Americans here at home.  We are living longer with a higher material standard of living than ever before.
When we talk about the necessity of a strong military, it is not only to protect our people and allies from North Korean missile and terrorist attacks.  It is also to guarantee freedom of navigation in the sea and in the air and to ensure that there are fair, enforceable international rules that give American companies and American workers a fair chance to compete.
Allowing our military strength to continue to wane adds fuel to China’s narrative that America is a nation in decline so that Asian nations would do better to enlist in China’s alternative economic and military order.  If China sets the rules for much of the world’s economy, America will feel the consequences in our pocketbooks as well as in our security.
A military starved of resources, training, and equipment will not long be able to protect the country physically or economically.  That is why Congress came together this month and ended the era of asking our troops to do too much with too little.  To make the most of that investment, we must now apply equal effort to agility driven reforms.
The brave men and women in the military serve the nation unconditionally, and our support for them should be unconditional as well.  They deserve the best training, equipment, and support that our nation can provide.  By providing that kind of support for them, we are also helping ensure that future Americans will inherit a country of growth and opportunity.
Republican Mac Thornberry represents Texas' 13th District in the U.S. House of Representatives where he serves as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

What is DACA and why is the Trump administration ending it?

DACA: What is it?

President Trump is expected to make a decision on the fate of Obama-era immigration Executive Order DACA. But what is it?

It’s down to the wire for President Trump and lawmakers to come up with a plan for the hundreds of thousands of young, undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.

In September 2017, the Trump administration officially announced its plan to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) – which provides a level of amnesty to certain undocumented immigrants, many of whom came to the U.S. as children – with a six-month delay for recipients. However, two federal judges have recently ruled that DACA must continue while litigation is pending. 

Here’s a look at the DACA program and why the Trump administration dismantled it.

What is the DACA program?

Nearly 800,000 undocumented youth fell under the DACA program's umbrella.  (Reuters/Jose Luis Gonzalez)

The DACA program was formed through executive order by former President Barack Obama in 2012 and allowed certain people who came to the U.S. illegally as minors to be protected from immediate deportation. Recipients, called Dreamers, were able to request “consideration of deferred action” for a period of two years, which was subject to renewal.
“Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stated. “Deferred action does not provide lawful status.”
Individuals were able to request DACA status if they were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012, came to the U.S. before turning 16 and continuously lived in the country since June 15, 2007.
Individuals also had to have a high school diploma, GED certification, been honorably discharged from the military or still be in school. Recipients could not have a criminal record.
It did not provide “legal status.”

How many people are affected by DACA?

Nearly 800,000 undocumented youth are under the program's umbrella.
Thousands of people could lose their jobs if the DACA program is rescinded permanently, according to a study by the left-leaning think tank, the Center for American Progress.
Daniel Garza, president of the conservative immigration nonprofit Libre Initiative, told Fox News that DACA offers a “reprieve from a life of uncertainty for innocent kids who didn’t break the law.”
“It’s rather disappointing to think they could return to a state of anxiety and fear,” he said.

Why did the Trump administration dismantle it?

The Trump administration announced in September 2017 that it planned to phase out DACA for current recipients, and no new requests would be granted.
Since the announcement, Trump has offered to work with lawmakers on a solution for the hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. who fell under DACA’s umbrella of protections. He has also repeatedly blamed Democrats on social media for lack of a solution.
On Feb. 13, a Brooklyn federal judge ordered the government to let people already in the DACA program continue enjoying protections but declined to guarantee the program to new applicants. In January, a San Francisco judge ruled that DACA must remain in place while litigation is ongoing.
The Supreme Court reportedly held a close-door meeting to discuss the court decisions on Feb. 16.
Earlier this year, Trump released his “four pillars” of immigration reform, which included a provision for legal status for DACA recipients and others who would be eligible for DACA status. The White House estimated that total to be 1.8 million people.
Republicans – and some Democrats – opposed Obama’s order establishing DACA from the start as a perceived overreach of executive power.
Obama spoke out on social media after the Trump administration announced the plan to dismantle the program, stating that it's "self-defeating ... and it is cruel" to end DACA and questioned the motive behind the decision.
One thing to consider: Trump's decision to end DACA could throw a wrench into his administration's other immigration reform efforts.

Do any DACA recipients serve in the military?

Despite some rumors circulating online to the contrary, Dreamers were eligible to serve in the U.S. military since 2014 when the Pentagon adopted a policy to allow a certain amount of undocumented immigrants to join.
In the fiscal year 2016, 359 DACA recipients had enlisted in the Army – which is the only branch to accept immigrants of this category.
A Department of Defense official said in April 2017 that the military would continue to accept noncitizen recruits, but it is unclear if that will continue to be the case.

Russia official calls US charges a joke worthy of actor Jim Carrey

A spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman says the U.S. indictment charging 13 Russians with trying to influence the U.S. presidential election is ridiculous enough to be the work of a professional comedian.

State news agency Tass quoted ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova saying Sunday: "I sometimes get the impression that ... behind these statements that are made in the U.S. are some of their most popular comedians, maybe Jim Carrey."

The indictment issued Feb. 16 alleges a businessman linked to President Vladimir Putin and a dozen other Russians ran a "troll farm" that created false social media content.
The indictment – the first filed against Russian nationals as part of Mueller’s probe – effectively returns focus to the meddling activities out of Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election, following a string of charges relating to the actions of Trump associates.
Further, the DOJ made clear that the indictment does not allege that any of the interference changed the outcome of the presidential race.
“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe, said at a Friday press conference.
Tass says Zakharova commented during a talk show on state Rossiya-1 TV: "It's really very ridiculous to blame 13 Russians from a legal company with influence on the U.S. election and seriously discuss it as evidence."

Oakland mayor warns of impending ICE raid, ramping up sanctuary-city tension

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf warned on Twitter that ICE would possibly raid the city's Bay Area as soon as Sunday.  (City of Oakland)  This woman needs to see the inside of a jail cell.

The mayor of a sanctuary city in California issued a warning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could be conducting a raid in the area as soon as Sunday — ratcheting up tension with the feds while giving her constituents an early heads-up.

Libby Schaaf, the Democratic mayor of Oakland, shared the warning — which she said she “learned from multiple credible sources” — in a press release on Saturday, “not to panic our residents but to protect them,” Fox 2 reported.

The mayor said she didn’t know further details of the ICE operation, but claimed she felt it was her “duty and moral obligation as Mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat appears imminent.”
The feds detained at least four people Sunday, a program manager for the San Francisco Immigrant Legal Education Network told the San Francisco Examiner, although the paper noted it was unclear if the detentions were related to any broader ICE operation.
Schaaf during a news conference on Sunday also said she told mayors of other Bay Area cities of the impending ICE sweep, SFGate reported.
Her tweet on Saturday aligned with previous reports that law enforcement officials in Northern California would not cooperate with ICE, and noted state law “prohibits business owners from assisting ICE agents in immigration enforcement and bars federal agents from accessing employee-only areas.”
Schaaf, who is seeking reelection, said in January that she’d be willing to go to jail to defend the city’s sanctuary city status, and has openly opposed the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
“It is no surprise that the bully in chief is continuing to try to intimidate our most vulnerable residents,” Schaaf said at the time. “We're very clear that our values are to protect all of our residents regardless of where we come from. We want to protect families, not tear them apart.”
WHAT ARE SANCTUARY CITIES?
And California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who’s running for governor, commended Schaaf’s public warning, telling SFGate: “We can and must protect immigrant families from Donald Trump’s mass deportations. I want to thank Mayor Schaaf for her courage and hope more local leaders will follow her lead.”
ICE told KGO-TV on Saturday that the bureau was unsure what Schaaf was referring to as “There are ICE operations every day.”

Politician's Armed Bodyguard Cartoons

Supreme Court case seeks disclosure of credit card fees to benefit consumers

FILE -- This April 4, 2017, file photo, shows the Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Every time a consumer swipes his or her credit card, the credit card company collects a fee. Do most consumers know this? Probably not. That’s because American Express rules prohibit retailers from educating consumers about these fees or giving consumers benefits for using lower-cost cards.

Although retailers are fighting for the right to disclose these fees, credit card companies are determined to keep consumers in the dark. 

To change these rules, retailers support a lawsuit that will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. The case, Ohio et al. v. American Express, began when the federal government and 11 states sued American Express, claiming that its rules violate U.S. antitrust laws.
After weeks of testimony and extensive briefing, a federal district court agreed. An appellate court later reversed the decision. Now the final determination will be made by the Supreme Court.
Retailers have been fighting the credit card networks’ unfair rules and anti-competitive practices for decades. The rules the Supreme Court will consider are but one example. They prevent consumers from getting basic information about the true costs of their payment choices, and prevent retailers from offering their own incentives or rewards to consumers who choose lower fee payment options.
Keeping consumers in the dark has allowed the banks and credit card networks to control the rewards they give to select customers while jacking up the fees charged to merchants – fees that are ultimately passed on to every customer in the form of higher prices.
For retailers, the solution is simple: let in the light.
Consumers crave transparency. They want to know the origins of their salmon and their T-shirts. They want to know what chemicals are in their water bottles and the calorie content of their breakfast. They use smartphones to read reviews and to compare prices on products right in the store.
Consumers use this information to make purchasing decisions that best fit their lifestyles and their budgets. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to know how much they’re paying to use their credit cards? Or be given the option at checkout to choose additional benefits for using a less expensive payment option?
The informed consumer is at the core of modern retail.  Empowered consumers increase retail competition, which in turn gives consumers more choices and lower prices.
The absence of similar transparency in the credit card market – because of American Express’s rules – has stifled competition in the payments space. The resulting higher fees increase prices for all consumers whether they pay by card, cash, check, or government benefits.
Transparency is the best way to prevent those with market power from stifling competition and innovation. Amex’s rules are the antithesis of the free market principles retailers embrace.
As the U.S. Supreme Court hears this case, America’s retailers hope the court will strike down American Express’s rules in order to allow transparency, marketplace competition and consumer choice to prevail.
Deborah White, senior executive vice president and general counsel for the Retail Industry Leaders Association and president of the Retail Litigation Center

Trump talks Dems' memo, guns and border wall in exclusive interview with Fox News

President Donald Trump urged the nation “to all come together” Saturday night as he discussed the Democrats' FISA rebuttal memo, potential new gun legislation and plans for a border wall in an exclusive interview with Fox News.

Speaking with Jeanine Pirro, host of "Justice with Judge Jeanine," Trump said the Democrats' FISA rebuttal memo “verified” the contents of Republican U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes' memo, which was released previously.

The president asserted that that was likely the reason why Democrats didn’t push hard for their own memo to be released. 
Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, asserts in his document, made public Feb. 2, that the FBI may have relied on questionable sources to obtain a surveillance warrant in connection with the investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The Democrats' memo, released Saturday, defends the FBI's actions.
Pirro noted that months of investigation into possible ties between the Russians and the Trump campaign and administration have not led to any “reference of collusion.”
“There is no collusion,” Trump replied.
“I don't want to sound braggadocious, but I was a far better candidate than [Hillary Clinton]. ... Frankly, that's what it was all about. It was nothing to do with Russians,” he said.

“I don't want to sound braggadocious, but I was a far better candidate than [Hillary Clinton]. ... Frankly, that's what it was all about. It was nothing to do with Russians.”

When asked about Twitter comments by U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and a harsh critic of the president, Trump responded by calling for national unity rather than division.
“We need intelligence that brings our nation together and a lot of people are tearing our nation apart. ... We have to come together as a nation.”
'I get things done'
The president was also asked about the accomplishments of his administration during its first year -- and what made them possible.
“I think that I’ve had a lot of good ideas and I have a lot of energy. I get things done,” Trump said.
Trump added that the Republicans' tax cut bill -- signed into law in December -- was a key reason why his approval ratings were high, but suggested that cuts in regulations may have been even more popular.
 “I don’t think any administration has done as much as we’ve done in the first year, I don’t think it’s even close,” Trump said.
Action on guns
He also spoke about gun regulation in wake of the Feb. 14 massacre in Parkland, Fla.
“I’ve spoke to many senators, many congressman ... and I think we’re going to have a great bill put forward very soon having to do with background checks,” Trump said.
But he added there was “no bigger champion of the Second Amendment” protecting the rights of gun owners than him -- and reiterated his stance that teachers should be able to protect schools through with “concealed [carry] permits.”
Trump said that assuring gun purchasers' mental stability would also be a strong part of improving background checks.
“Somebody who is mentally ill should not have a weapon, should not have a gun,” he said. “We’re drawing up very strong legislation right now having to do with background checks, mental illness. I think you’re going to have tremendous support.”
'I'd like to have a parade'
Trump also spoke about his idea of having a military parade to celebrate the nation's service members and veterans.
“I’d like to have a parade, a lot of the generals would like to have a parade to celebrate what we’re doing,” he said, adding that the event could possibly be held July 4 or on Veterans Day in November.
Trump also discussed his progress with immigration legislation, saying that although Democrats have agreed to support a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, he “needs more” in order to finalze a comprehensive immigration plan.
“We need something to do with chain migration, we need something to do with visa lottery ... We want people to come in through merit,” he said.
Trump ended with some thoughts on first daughter Ivanka Trump’s visit to South Korea for the Winter Olympics.
“There is no better representative we can have go over to a pretty tough place right now in the world," he said. "We cannot have a better, smarter representative.”

Condoleezza Rice says US needs to consider Second Amendment's place in 'modern world'

Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice  (2010 Getty Images)

This month's massacre in Parkland, Fla., seems like a key moment in the nation's ongoing debate about the Second Amendment, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during a radio interview Friday.

“I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world,” Rice told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday. “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”

More specifically, Rice said weapons like the AR-15 rifle that authorities say shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz, 19, used to kill 17 students and teachers Feb. 14, shouldn't be available to civilians, the Washington Times reported.
But Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, made clear that she remains a believer in the Second Amendment.
“We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First,” she said, adding that she considers the first two amendments to the Constitution to be “indivisible.”

“We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First.”

- Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. secretary of state

Hewitt then asked if Rice -- being an educator herself as a political science professor at Stanford University -- supports the idea of teachers carrying guns as a deterrent to potential campus shootings.
Rice said she doesn’t think that is “going to be the answer,” the Washington Times reported.
“I don’t really like the idea, frankly, of a gun in my classroom,” she said.
Rather, she supports looking to law enforcement and guards as ways for protection.
Rice, 63, was exposed to senseless violence at an early age, having grown up in Birmingham, Ala., where the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in 1963 resulted in the deaths of four young girls. She has written and spoken frequently about the impression the horrific event made on her.
She told Hewitt that despite her reservations about weapons in the classroom, the proposal merited a serious discussion.

“Look, if people need to train people to protect our schools, and perhaps even communities want to consider whether or not they need guards to protect the schools, it’s a sad thing to think that we might, then that’s something that we should look at,” Rice said. She told Hewitt that talking across “our differences is extremely important” and that communities have to “pull together.” “We have to start listening to each other, first and foremost,” Rice said of the people from all sides of the debate on gun control.

NRA defends itself after corporations pull away

A cap and shirt are displayed at the booth for the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor, Md., Feb. 23, 2018.

The National Rifle Association defended itself in no uncertain terms Saturday after numerous companies sought to cut ties with the gun lobby following the nation's latest mass shooting.

“Let it be absolutely clear,” the organization said in a statement. “The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world.”

The statement came two days after Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, delivered a fiery speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland.

Let it be absolutely clear. The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world. #StandandFight #NRA #2A https://t.co/4kzNq9GDLq

— NRA (@NRA) February 25, 2018

The NRA, which represents about 5 million members, has faced public outcry following a mass shooting Feb. 14 in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 people. That outcry has mostly taken the form of calls for gun control legislation and for boycotts of companies that partner with the NRA on discount offers and other consumer inducements.

Video

NRA's Wayne LaPierre defends Second Amendment at CPAC

On Saturday, United and Delta Airlines joined the list of companies separating themselves from the gun group. Previous companies to do so include MetLife, Symantec and rental car companies Hertz, Budget, Avis and Enterprise.
Those moves prompted Saturday's response from the NRA, which asserted that those corporations had “decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice.”
NRA BACKLASH: THESE ARE THE COMPANIES CUTTING TIES
The NRA's statement argued that other factors besides gun ownership were to blame for events like the Parkland massacre.
“The law-abiding members of the NRA had nothing at all to do with the failure of that school’s security preparedness, the failure of America’s mental health system, the failure of the National Instant Check System or the cruel failures of both federal and local law enforcement,” its statement said.

Gun laws: What goes into a federal background check?

However, the Washington Post reported that the NRA fought the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers, suing the federal government once the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was up and running. The NRA had argued that the entire law, including the NICS provision, be struck down as unconstitutional, the report said. 

15 brands have now ended their relationship with the @NRA:

1. @MetLife
2. @symantec
3. @BestWestern
4. @Wyndham
5. @Alamo
6. @NationalPro
7. @Enterprise
8. @FNBOmaha
9. @Hertz
10. @Budget
11. @Avis
12. @NortonOnline
13. @northAmericanVL
14. @SimpliSafe
15. @ChubbNA#BoycottNRA

CNN #1 Fake News Cartoons