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

Connect with us

News

Sudden Surprise Guest On Air Force One Ignites Whirlwind Of Rumors

No one saw That coming! Wow!

Published

on

While President Donald Trump’s appearance at a campaign rally in Lewis Center, Ohio, drew crowds Saturday, Hope Hicks was also at the center of attention after she was spotted traveling with President Donald Trump aboard Air Force One. Setting off a flurry of rumors and speculation, the former White House communications director was seen among a handful of aides for the Trump administration.

The group boarded Air Force One at an airport located in Morristown, New Jersey just ahead of President Trump’s departure to the campaign rally held for Republican congressional candidate Troy Balderson where President Trump was offering his endorsement. Hicks was then seen disembarking from Air Force One when the plane landed at the John Glenn Columbus International Airport in Ohio. Her appearance caused the rumor mill to go wild.

Trending: In Historic 9-0 Decision, Supreme Court Just Shredded Democrats – YUGE!!!!

A close friend of President Trump’s oldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, Hicks resigned from her position in February 2018 as the White House communications director after serving for just six months. Prior to that, Hicks was an aide for the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election. Prior to working for the Trump campaign, Hicks did public relations work for Ivanka.

AOL reports Hicks “planned to spend her weekend at one of Trump’s golf courses in New Jersey with first daughter Ivanka Trump and Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, according to sources cited in a Vanity Fair report published on Monday.

But after Trump found out Hicks was in town, he asked her to join him at the rally in Lewis Center, Ohio, sources reportedly told Vanity Fair’s Emily Jane Fox.

Aboard Air Force One, Hicks talked off-the-record to reporters and even jokingly took suggestions about her career prospects.

Hicks also said that if the timing was right, she would consider becoming Trump’s chief of staff, a position currently held by John Kelly. Kelly is expected to stay on board until 2020, and reportedly turned down Trump’s request to stay for a possible second term.

‘She’s just trying to live her life, and if everyone’s going to be following her every move anyway, why not do what she wants to do?’ a person familiar with the situation told Vanity Fair. ‘The expectation that she would totally cut herself off from the family cold turkey is unrealistic.’

An unnamed sourced familiar with Hicks’ thinking told the publication Hicks is working through her transition from the high-flying role she held in the White House.

‘If she’s going to be scrutinized anyway, she may as well enjoy herself,’ the person said. ‘No job is going to be as good as what she came off of, so you have to find a way to slow down and come back to reality.’

‘There’s opportunities for her in finance-related jobs,’ the person added. ‘The biggest issue is finding a place where she feels comfortable. There aren’t that many places where she feels safe and secure.'”

Hicks’ abrupt resignation came amid a tsunami of tabloid coverage of her romance with Rob Porter, who resigned as staff secretary to President Trump in February 2018 after past domestic abuse allegations by his two ex-wives surfaced. While the notoriously private Hicks did not explain why she resigned, there was rampant speculation that she was upset at becoming the constant target of vicious tabloid gossip because of her boyfriend’s past.

Much to her credit, upon leaving the women currently serving in the Trump White House spoke highly of Hicks, heaped praise on her, as well as thanking her for her friendship and hard work. Upon her departure Hicks’ said in her departing statement – “There are no words to adequately express my gratitude to President Trump. I wish the President and his administration the very best as he continues to lead our country.”

Hicks

In response to Hicks’ departing announcement, President Trump himself heaped praise upon the 29-year-old calling her “a truly great person.” President Trump said – “Hope is outstanding and has done great work for the last three years. She is as smart and thoughtful as they come, a truly great person. I will miss having her by my side but when she approached me about pursuing other opportunities, I totally understood.”

Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly issued his own statement separately, describing Hicks as “strategic, poised and wise beyond her years.” Kelly said – “She has served her country with great distinction. To say that she will be missed is an understatement.”

When Kelly leaves, will Hicks be a contender for the job?

Zero Hedge reports – “The Daily Mail and Vanity Fair are the latest publications to jump on the Hicks bandwagon, reporting that Hicks has told confidants that she would absolutely be interested in the position, and that her name is rising up the list of possible candidates, which also includes Nick Ayers, Vice President Pence’s chief of staff, and Mick Mulvaney, the OMB chief who is essentially the Elon Musk of the Trump administration (a reference to his multiple roles running OMB and serving as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).

A source close to Hicks told the publication that she has told people she is open to the job if Trump asked, but is not pursuing it. Hicks declined to comment.

Meanwhile, supporters are lobbying for Hicks, a longtime Trump spokeswoman from both his private business and the campaign, to return to the administration after stepping down as White House Communications Director in March.

“Unlike any other candidate he may be considering, she doesn’t need a learning curve and possesses the most important qualities that the president cares about: loyalty, independence, and a calming presence during chaos,” conservative commentator Ryan Girdusky wrote for the Washington Examiner.

VF added that Hicks is being actively discussed, citing two sources from inside the administration.

Another dark-horse candidate is Hope Hicks. Two sources say Hicks’s name is being discussed inside the White House. According to a source close to Hicks, she has told people she is open to the job if Trump asked, but is not pursuing it. When I reached out, she declined to comment.

Hicks’ chances are bolstered by the fact that she’s an unabashed Trump loyalist, and would reportedly “help Trump connect with his base.”

In addition, hiring Hicks would be a historic move of sorts. She would be the first female White House chief of staff, as well as the youngest – helping Trump swat away critics who’ve accused him of being a misogynist. The president himself has helped stoke rumors by telling reporters that he’d love for Hicks to return to the White House, adding that “everybody misses” her.

“I love Hope.. I think everybody misses it, I think when they leave for a while,” Trump told reporters. “Many people would like to come back. Look, there is nothing more exciting than what we’re doing.”

 

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