Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

After Trump Pardoned Him, D’Souza Wasted No Time Selling Out Obama With Shocking Claim 

The truth revealed!

Published

on

President Donald Trump pardoned conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza, sparking controversy among his critics. If you can recall D’Souza is the man behind movies like “2016: Obama’s America.” In the wake of the pardon, D’Souza wasted no time before coming forward with a shocking claim about former President Barack Obama. It’s a claim that has many eyes and ears on high alert as they dig into the mystery of his claim.

When Barack Obama was in office, D’Souza was prosecuted for using a “straw donor” to make campaign contributions on his behalf which exceeded the established limitations for an individual.  Although donors rarely face charges for such violations, especially left wind donors, the investigation into D’Souza’s actions were widely seen as a political witch hunt. But sadly he was forced to plead guilty in federal court back in 2014.

Who can blame D’Souza for feeling the way he felt in America. Former President Barack Obama turned him into a political prisoner for not agreeing with his political views. Just like in Communist Cuba, but with the help of the American justice system.

CLICK HERE To Sign Card And Show You Stand With Roseanne

Trending: Rock Star Sees Trump Supporter In Crowd, Jumps Off Stage And Makes Him Pay Vile Price [Video]

Compare this to what happened to Rosie O’Donnell for doing the exact same thing via The New York Post:

“Rosie O’Donnell made illegally over-sized campaign donations to at least five Democratic federal candidates, according to a Post analysis of campaign filings.

The liberal comedian has regularly broken Federal Election Commission rules limiting the total any one person can give to an individual candidate at $2,700 per election. The limit applies separately to primaries, runoffs and general elections.

“Nothing nefarious,” the outspoken star and Donald Trump arch-nemesis wrote in an email to the Post. “I was not choosing to over donate.

“If 2700 is the cut off — [candidates] should refund the money,” she wrote. “I don’t look to see who I can donate most to … I just donate assuming they do not accept what is over the limit.”

CLICK HERE To Sign Petition to BAN ‘The View’ For Being Hateful

O’Donnell said she donates often, and uses the online liberal fundraising platform ActBlue. “My anxiety is quelled by donating to those opposing trump [and] his agenda — especially at night — when most of these were placed.”

Alabama Sen. Doug Jones disclosed $4,700 from O’Donnell in his special general election bid last year against former GOP judge and accused child molester Roy Moore, his campaign filings show. Jones’ office didn’t return messages seeking comment.

Pennsylvania Rep. Conor Lamb reported $3,600 from O’Donnell for the special general election he won in a March upset, his filings show. He’s now running for a full two-year term in a different congressional district in November, and O’Donnell put up another $1,000 for that bid.

Lamb’s campaign manager said they will notify O’Donnell of her error and inform her that the extra $900 can be refunded or put toward the primary.

Filings show O’Donnell gave a combined $5,400 in contributions over the limit to the five candidates, and used five different New York addresses and four variations of her name.

O’Donnell donated $2,950 to California Rep. Adam Schiff, a 17-year veteran of the House, for his primary, according to his campaign filings. His campaign didn’t return messages seeking comment.

Lauren Underwood, an Illinois congressional candidate, reported $4,200 from O’Donnell for her primary, filings show. Her campaign didn’t return a message.

And Omar Vaid, a little-known congressional candidate in Staten Island and Brooklyn, reported $3,450 in primary donations from O’Donnell, filings show. Vaid’s finance director said the campaign “inadvertently designated” some of the money to the “wrong election” and would amend its filings.

Asked how much she gave to Vaid, O’Donnell wrote, “I have no idea.”

She said she assumed ActBlue “limits donations to the max allowed.”

She added, “I keep donating” and that her brother Tim handles her money.

She gave more than $90,000 the 2017-2018 election cycle to 50 different federal candidates and committees, filings show.

Both donors and candidates are legally liable for contributions over the limit. But it’s unlikely O’Donnell or her benefactors will be penalized for breaking FEC rules. Contributions over the limit can be refunded or counted toward a different election, and married donors can attribute the money to a spouse.

“Donors are rarely fined for excess contributions and then only if they are hiding the donations from the recipients,” prominent D.C. campaign finance lawyer Jan Witold Baran said. “Campaigns generally are not penalized for isolated contributions over a limit. However, multiple excessive donations may lead to an investigation … Fines could result in such cases.”

O’Donnell is also a prolific local political donor, putting up at least $25,100 for city and state candidates since 2000, New York filings show. Last year she gave a maxed-out $4,950 donation to Mayor de Blasio. In 2006 O’Donnell even gave $1,000 to former Westchester County DA and then Republican state attorney general candidate Jeanine Pirro, now a Fox News host and loyal Trump defender.

“I also maxed out to cynthia nixon,” O’Donnell told the Post. “And I loathe Jeannine Pirro.”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Immigrants Living On Taxpayer Dime Got Rude Awakening Thanks To Trump’s ‘New Rule’

Immigrants just got a harsh wake-up call from President Trump!

Published

on

A new rule is being cooked up by the Trump administration that will send a rude awakening to immigrants living on the taxpayer dime. Trump’s new rule brings up the “public charge” in what the New York Times stated was a law that was about 100-years-old but was reworked in 1999. President Donald Trump’s new rule, which is in the works, not in action, could affect up to 1 million people in New York alone.

It has to do with immigrants using resources for welfare benefits and being listed in the realm of being a “burden” on the funds.

The New York Times stated: “But a new rule in the works from the Trump administration would make it difficult, if not impossible, for immigrants who use those benefits to obtain green cards.

New York City officials estimated that at least a million people here could be hurt by this plan, warning that the children of immigrants seeking green cards would be most vulnerable.

That’s because if applicants use any welfare benefits, even for children who are United States citizens, that could indicate they would be a burden on government resources. “What feels deeply concerning,” said Bitta Mostofi, New York City’s commissioner of immigrant affairs, “is the impact on the welfare of children, period.”

The spin they put on it makes it seem like this will leave families without food and that President Trump is going after immigrant children. What it should really be looked at is a rule that helps people become more motivated to get jobs and provide food for their families on their own, not live on the government dole while other people work 60 hours a week just to have funds for the welfare of others taken out of their check via taxes.

There are two ways to look at their new possible rules. The liberals will say it’s an attack on children and immigrants. The people with more common sense will say it’s about time that people started working for themselves. That brings up the classic debate that many of the working class are tired of hearing about – taxes and welfare. People who work for a living don’t like seeing their money given to people who refuse to work for a living.

Being on welfare because you have to is one thing. Some people are unable to work and need help. That’s different and most Americans are happy to help in that scenario. When people are on tough times, then sometimes they need a little bit of help, and that’s acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of. However, there are people who milk the system and refuse to work and that needs to be stopped at all costs. Being on welfare because you purposely choose not to work is a bad thing and any president that we have should be inclined to get people off the couch and back to being productive.

Just for reference, the public charge fact sheet states:

“Introduction

“Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident. However, receiving public benefits does not automatically make an individual a public charge. This fact sheet provides information about public charge determinations to help noncitizens make informed choices about whether to apply for certain public benefits.

“Background

“Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to permanent resident (obtaining a green card) is inadmissible if the individual “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status will not be granted.

“Immigration and welfare laws have generated some concern about whether a noncitizen may face adverse immigration consequences for having received federal, state, or local public benefits. Some noncitizens and their families are eligible for public benefits – including disaster relief, treatment of communicable diseases, immunizations, and children’s nutrition and health care programs – without being found to be a public charge.

“Definition of Public Charge

“In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge” as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

“Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“USCIS guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and state or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “general assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a noncitizen inadmissible as a public charge if all other criteria are met. However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.

“In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care – such as a nursing home or mental health institution – may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations. Short-term institutionalization for rehabilitation is not subject to public charge consideration.

“Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:

  • Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
  • Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
  • Housing benefits
  • Child care services
  • Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
  • Emergency disaster relief
  • Foster care and adoption assistance
  • Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary or higher education
  • Job training programs
  • In-kind, community-based programs, services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
  • Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
  • Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans’ benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
  • Unemployment compensation

“Some of the above programs may provide cash benefits, such as energy assistance, transportation or child care benefits provided under TANF or the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and one-time emergency payments under TANF. Since the purpose of such benefits is not for income maintenance, but rather to avoid the need for ongoing cash assistance for income maintenance, they are not subject to public charge consideration.

“Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.”

Continue Reading

News

Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News

This is outrageous!

Published

on

Here we go again. I’m sure you are familiar with the Colorado Christian cake shop owner who just won a huge case in front of the Supreme Court this last June. Jack Phillips is the Christian baker who made history by prevailing in front of the High Court after he refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs. Most of America celebrated with Phillips when he won the case and it provided a glimmer of hope for religious freedom once again here in the United States.

At the time of Phillips case, the Supreme Court admonished the state’s attorney who was standing against the baker for religious intolerance. He allegedly made a number of comments that gave the court pause on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court issued a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. They were right to think that and it has been proven even more to be true this week as this baker just got really bad news. Phillips just filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. From what I am seeing he is being set up to be taken down in a different legalistic move… this time it involves gender issues.

Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom contend that the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June’s High Court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. It’s like deja vu all over again.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney that represents Phillips. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him — something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

The person allegedly behind all of this is an attorney named Autumn Scardina. She reportedly called Phillips’ shop the day the decision in his favor was rendered and asked him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The caller asked that the cake be blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Over several months after that, Phillips received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, s******y explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. He’s convinced that Scardina was the one who made all of the requests to set him up for legal action.

From PJ Media:

“To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“‘We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

“Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had treated Phillips unfairly on the basis of his religion, thus violating his right to free exercise, this follow-up round seems particularly noxious. “It seems like another round of targeting him and putting him through this very difficult process simply because he wants to be faithful in his business in what he creates through his art,” Tedesco said.

“The commission could have decided not to pursue this second case against Phillips. The ADF lawyer explained that, when a Colorado citizen thinks he or she has been discriminated against, they file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division, which then conducts an investigation and determines probable cause.

“When Autumn Scardina filed this complaint, Tedesco would have expected the civil rights commission to reject it. “After Masterpiece came down from the Supreme Court, we expected Colorado to take that into account and realize that it was a bad decision to keep targeting Jack for his religious convictions,” the lawyer explained. “Instead, they found probable cause.”

“‘He’s going to be fully investigated again, there will be hearings from an administrative law judge,” Tedesco said. “It’s restarting the entire scenario.”

“‘It’s appalling,” the lawyer declared. “It’s unconscionable that they would go after him again right on the heels of losing a case because they were openly hostile to his religious beliefs.'”

Scardina has now filed a complaint with the civil rights commission. She is alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The complaint was held aside while the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ other case. Just three weeks after Phillips won his case, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination. This sure looks as though it was all planned out this way. “Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor,” Phillips’ lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.”

The freedom of religion is sacrosanct in this nation as a First Amendment right. Weaponizing lawfare to take it apart is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. I sincerely hope that Phillips prevails once more and that a more solid ruling by the Supreme Court puts an end to this form of religious bigotry.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend