As the Supreme Court Bolsters President Trump's Agenda, the Democrat Party Collapses

THE SUPREME COURT IS RELEASING KEY DECISIONS. • • • THE TRAVEL BAN. The Trump administration received good news from the Supreme Court on Monday qs the Court lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six majority-Moslem nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments as early as October. The Court's decision means the justices will now take on the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration -- the President's order temporarily restricting US entry by people from certain countriesl, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban." President Trump issued a statement : "Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security," Trump said in a statement. "...As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive....My number one responsibility as Commander-in-Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland." • The Court decided that a limited version of the policy can be enforced immediately with a full hearing to come in the Fall : "An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.” Justice Thomas wrote : “The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits -- that is, that the judgments below will be reversed....The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.’” Justice Thomas was joined by Alito and Gorsuch. • In the Fall, oral arguments will focus on whether the temporary ban violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old federal law. Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent weeks have ruled against the administration. A majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited then-candidate Trump's campaign statements proposing a ban "preventing Moslem immigration." However, the White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security. A coalition of opposing groups call the order blatant religious discrimination, since the six countries involved have mostly-Moslem populations : Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. A major issue for the justices may be to decide how much discretion the President really has over immigration, if that question annot be avoided. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent Presidents dating back to Jimmy Carter have used their discretion to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats -- including those from nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea. • The 1952 federal law -- the Immigration and Nationality Act -- passed during the Cold War's fear over Communist influence -- gives the President broad authority. Section 212(f) states : "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." • In his opinion, Thomas criticized the majority for the compromise nature of Monday's ruling, stating he would have allowed the order to be enforced in full. Thomas said he feared "the Court's remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation : "Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding -- on peril of contempt -- whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c) of Executive Order No. 13780.” • • • THE COURT SPEAKS ABOUT RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. On Monday, the Supreme Court also published its ruling in favor of a Missouri church that sued the state after being denied taxpayer funds for a playground project because of a provision that prohibits state funding for religious entities. The decision was 7-2. The case, one of the most closely watched of the term, required balancing two parts of the First Amendment -- freedom of religion and separation of church and state. In 2012, Missouri launched an initiative to encourage schools to use recycled tires to produce softer playground surfaces. Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri, which runs a preschool, was denied a state grant to participate in the program -- and lawyers for Trinity argued the state discriminated against the school based on religion. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed, wtiting for the Majority : “The exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand,” Roberts wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a strong dissent -- and said Monday’s decision “profoundly changes” the relationship between church and state, writing that the ruling “slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.” • Missouri's law at the time was similar to those in three dozen other states that prohibited direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation. Since then, Republican Governor Eric Greitens has changed Missouri's policy to allow religious institutions to participate in the program but Monday’s opinion could have an impact on other cases. • Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor with The Catholic Association, called the ruling “a significant victory for fairness and government neutrality towards religious institutions. The Supreme Court is sharply signaling in this decision that the government must stop its growing hostility towards religion and religious institutions, and that antiquated and anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments should not be used as a weapon to discriminate against people of faith.” • • • THE COURT AVOIDS A GUN CONTROL ISSUE. The Supreme Court refused to consider loosening restrictions on carrying firearms in public, rejecting an appeal by California gun-rights advocates and continuing to steer clear of one of the nation’s most polarizing issues. The justices left intact a San Diego County policy that requires people to show a special need in order to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home. A divided federal appeals court had upheld the policy. The Court has turned away gun-rights appeals ever since its last Second Amendment case in 2010, declining to carve out new constitutional protections for firearm owners outside the home. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the Court should have heard the case. • California is one of about 8 states that bar most people from carrying weapons in public. California makes an exception for residents who can show “good cause” to carry a concealed handgun, while leaving it to local authorities to decide what meets that standard. San Diego residents challenged the county standard when the San Diego County sheriff said “good cause” must be more than a desire to carry a weapon for general self-defense purposes. The county requires a person to show a “set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.” The 7-4 appeals court decision said the San Diego residents’ lawsuit focused solely on the right to carry a concealed weapon, not broader issues about Second Amendment rights outside the home : “Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment -- whatever the scope of that protection may be -- simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public." The challengers at the Supreme Court said the lower courts should have looked at California’s laws as a whole, including its prohibition on open carrying of weapons in most cases because, according to the group's leader : “The result is that the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra urged the Supreme Court not to hear the case, arguing that states could allow concealed carry if they chose. The appeals court ruling “holds only that a state cannot be forced to make that particular choice,” Becerra argued. The Supreme Court let the lower court decision stand. • • • AND A FEDERAL COURT TAKES ON COMEY'S CASE. A federal judge in Washington DC acted quickly in a case alleging that fired FBI Director James Comey obstructed justice by burying an investigation into the mass surveillance of Americans by their government. WND reported that whistleblower Dennis Montgomery -- who worked as a contractor for the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence -- and his lawyer, Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, filed a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction late Monday. And, by late Tuesday, US District Judge Richard Leon scheduled a status conference for Friday afternoon in his Washington courtroom. The lawsuit seeks to stop the nation’s “intelligence agencies” from continuing their “illegal and unconstitutional surveillance.” Those actions, according to Klayman, were confirmed again recently in a report by Circa News. The complaint also alleges Comey obstructed justice by : “suppressing if not burying an FBI investigation into this illegal mass surveillance, which involved the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, President Trump and his associates before he became president, and other prominent persons.” Klayman said : "the speed with which Judge Leon set this hearing is commendable, as each day that the government continues to conduct unconstitutional spying on Americans without probable cause creates grave harm to not just the victims, but our republic. Judge Leon previously preliminarily enjoined the NSA on two previous occasions from what he ruled was an ‘almost Orwellian’ invasion of privacy, and the defendants ignored his rulings. I cannot believe he will be pleased about their brazen disregard for the law and the Constitution yet again. As for Comey, he was encharged with investigating this illegal conduct, when Montgomery came forward with proof years ago, and he allegedly buried the investigation because, as the FISA court revealed, the FBI was also conducting illegal surveillance under his direction. Plaintiffs are also asking the court to preserve this evidence, which Montgomery provided, with his testimony under oath, to the FBI and Comey.” • Montgomery and Klayman are seeking from the court a protection order preventing the destruction of evidence. They are asking the court to prevent the defendants, including Comey, the FBI and other federal officials mostly under the Obama administration, from continuing “illegally and unconstitutionally spying on and surveilling millions of Americans, including plaintiffs, without probable cause or a warrant.” They are also asking the court to prevent the defendants from “destroying evidence of illegal and unconstitutional spying” that Montgomery turned over Comey based on the promise it was going to be investigated. These objectives can be reached with a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, they state in their filings. • Defendants in the case include Comey, the FBI, Michael Rogers, the NSA, John Brennan, Mike Pompeo, the CIA, James Clapper, Dan Coats and Barack Obama. They were accused in the original lawsuit, filed a few weeks ago, of “illegally and unconstitutionally spying on and surveilling millions of Americans, including plaintiffs, without probable cause or a warrant, and...destroying evidence of illegal and unconstitutional spying turned over to defendant Comey and the FBI by plaintiff Montgomery.” The motion alleges the illegal spying continues. • The lawsuit alleges misbehavior by Comey and others when Montgomery “was induced by Defendants Comey and the FBI and made to turn over 47 hard drives of evidence of the aforementioned illegal, unconstitutional activity, stating : “Indeed, counsel for Montgomery, plaintiff Klayman, was told and assured by the former general counsel of the FBI, James Baker, that defendant Comey was taking ‘hands on’ supervision and conducting the FBI’s Montgomery investigation, given its importance.” • • • STATE DEPARTMENT OPENS A HILLARY INQUIRY. Fox News reported last Tuesday that "the State Department has opened a formal inquiry into whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while she was the nation’s top diplomat. Despite being under investigation, Clinton and her staffers still have security clearances to access sensitive government information." The State Department inquiry will seek to determine whether Clinton and her closest aides violated government protocols by using her private server to receive, hold and transmit classified and top-secret government documents. The Department did not tell Fox News when its inquiry began, but it follows the conclusion of the 2016 FBI probe into the matter, which did not result in any actions being taken against Clinton or any of her aides. Depending on the outcome of the current State Department inquiry, Clinton and her aides could have their access to sensitive government documents terminated. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley confirmed to Fox News the State Department’s formal inquiry. • Meanwhile, Grassley’s committee launched its own inquiry into Clinton’s handling of emails, an inquiry that began in March. Grassley cited among his concerns the statement of former FBI Director James Comey that the agency found Clinton and her staff members were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Grassley also contended there is “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information...” • During the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of top-secret and classified information on her private server, Comey said there were seven email chains on Clinton’s computer classified at the “Top Secret/Special Access Program level.” Another 2,000 emails on her private server were found to have contained information deemed classified now, though not marked classified when sent. In addition, the server also contained 22 top-secret emails deemed too damaging to national security to be released. • Clinton’s spokesperson, Nick Merrill, told Fox News that the investigation into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information is done : “Nothing's been more thoroughly dissected. It's over. Case closed. Literally." -- Maybe not. • • • TRUMP ASKS FOR LIMITS ON IMMIGRANT PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. Just days before the Supreme Court gave President Trump a partial clearance ot begin his temporary ban on immigration from certain terror-ridden countries, Trump announced that he will soon ask Congress to pass legislation banning immigrants from accessing public assistance within five years of entering the US. Trump told a Cedar Rapids rally last week : “The time has come for new immigration rules that say...those seeking immigration into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years." • Trump's proposal would build on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which allows federal authorities to deport immigrants who become public dependents within five years of their arrival. Many of that law’s provisions were suppressed during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, but Trump's proposal would make more categories of federal benefits unavailable to immigrants. • Currently, states have the authority to determine eligibility for local public assistance programs. Foreigners with non-immigrant visas and those who don't have legal status are generally prohibited from those benefits altogether. • Trump's proposal would also prevent the admission of people who are likely to become so-called "public charges" within five years of their arrival. The concept of "public charge" has been part of US immigration law for over a century, permitting the government to bar entry to individuals who are likely to seek public assistance. Trump is expected to propose toughening up the rules regarding “public charge” and ensuring that they are enforced. • In requesting the amendments to the current law, the White House will cite a 2015 report from the Center for Immigration Studies that found 51% of households headed by an immigrant are using some form of public assistance, compared to 30% among non-immigrant families. • • • DEAR READERS, the Spureme Court has stepped up to the plate and is telling America that President Trump is right about a lot of things. But, sadly, many of the good things President Trump is doing are being buried under the mainstream media's attacks on his presidency. • For example, under President Obama, military morale was disastrously low, with the military rating the legacy of Commander-in-Chief Obama in acerbic terms across every service. Morale reached rock bottom in 2015 with 52% of the troops across all branches "pessimistic about their future," and 70% expecting it to get even worse. This was a 30-point plunge during the Obama presidency, according to a Military Times poll. That was after the Pentagon spent $287 million during six of the Obama years on an "optimism program." The various analysts of the Military Times survey cited bad pay, troop drawdowns, lack of support from Washington in the deployments to hellholes like Afghanistan and Iraq, and micro-managing of field decisions from the lawyers and White House civilian officials with no military experience. But most of all, there was a Commander-in-Chief who didn't believe in their mission or in victory, preferring to let the wars slog on and the soldiers pay the price. • In his first six months in office, President Donald Trump has made a steady transfer of power from the White House to the Pentagon, handing off several warfighting authorities that previously rested in his hands -- as President -- to the Pentagon and the commanders overseeing US military campaigns. The Progressive MSM think this is another Trump mismanagement of his presidency, and CNN sharply criticized it, but the CNN online article contained a paragraph that tells us everything we need to know about Trump's wisdom : "The moves are intended to empower the military at a tactical level, bolstering the US' intensifying fight against ISIS and al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups to praise from several current and former military officials." So, there will be no more micromanagement by White House officials with creative writing degrees and absolutely no knowledge of conditions in the field -- remember Ben Rhodes? The military appreciates its capacity to win victories -- one photo of a howitzer barrel decorated with the Trump COVFEFE tweet has gone viral and says it all. It's a sign that the soldiers on the line have a Commander-in-Chief they respect and want to win for, and they know he will allow them to win. • A string of House special election GOP wins ending in Democrat Jon Ossoff’s defeat to Republican Karen Handel in Georgia last week has only intensified the scrutiny and second-guessing of Democrat Party strategy, to say nothing of the hand-wringing by party activists longing for a victory. Democratic strategist and former advisor to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, says of the Democrat Party's collapse : “I’m not convinced we know what the best thing is for the party right now. I’m not convinced we have the answers. I don’t have the faintest idea in this point in time. I’m still trying to digest what happened.” • What happened is Donald Trump, a serious, America-first President who is a brilliant leader working full-speed to put the ship of America back on course and put Americans back in charge of their country. The Democrat Party doesn't have a clue about what Trump is doing because putting Americans in charge of America is not part of their DNA.