Ryan Works With Pelosi & Schumer To Stall Trump Economic Recovery

Paul Ryan has entered into a secret alliance between himself and other Establishment Republicans in the House as well as Nancy Pelosi and her activist brigade of Democrats. This alliance also extends to Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, and a mix of Senate Republicans and Democrats as well.

The primary goal? Delay Donald Trump’s agenda. See the economy remain stagnant. Fill seats with moderate (spineless) Republicans come 2018, and declare the Trump agenda dead thereafter.  

The first evidence of this tactical delay on the part of Ryan to ensure nothing getting done remains the D.C. status-quo, is to declare almost all attention/energy/focus will be on dealing with “fixing” Obamacare.

Pay attention to the wording. Watch “repeal and replace” become secondary to “fixing.” Ryan intends to initiate a patch-work approach that will take up a great deal of legislative time, receive significant media attention,  but in the end, get little actually accomplished by of way of “repeal and replace.”  In the meantime, the delay in such critical components of the Trump economic recover plan – namely sweeping tax reform, will be further delayed.

In effect, Paul Ryan and his cadre of Establishment Republicans will do to Trump what they rarely appeared willing to do against Barack Obama – namely use the power of the legislature to contain a president’s agenda.


Read more at http://dcwhispers.com/ryan-works-pelosi-schumer-stall-trump-economi...

Views: 1241

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Did not check all of these out:

"

Cato at Liberty
The latest blog posts from the Cato Institute:

Why the Government Cannot Ban All Immigrants from a Certain Country

Posted on February 8, 2017 by David Bier

I previously reviewed the exceptionally poor arguments that the Trump administration used to defend its blanket ban on immigration from seven majority Muslim countries in the State of Washington v. Donald Trump. Now, in its appeal of the district court’s temporary restraining order to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the government has added a new argument in favor of its position that is still fatally flawed. It claims:

The State continues to argue that Section 3(c)’s temporary suspension of the entry of aliens from seven countries contravenes the restriction on nationality based distinctions in [section 202(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)]. But that restriction applies only to “the issuance of an immigrant visa,” Id., not to the President’s restrictions on the right of entry [under section 212(f)].

The government was right not to attempt this argument initially. Their argument is that a visa does not entitle the recipient to entry in the United States, but merely to travel to the United States. Therefore, they are free to discriminate at the border. To bolster the argument, INA 101(a)(4) does specifically distinguish between admission and visa issuance.  Essentially, they are defining “visa” in section 202 to include only the visa document that permits travel to the border, but does not grant status in the United States. And status is what grants a person the legal right to reside inside the country.

The problem is that the definition of a “visa” in section 202 includes “status” that grants a right to enter and reside in the United States. The State Department’s regulations define visa in section 202 to mean visa or status and have for as long as the INA has been around. Eligibility for status is either determined by an adjustment of status application for immigrants residing inside the United States or at the border for immigrants entering the United States on an immigrant visa for the first time. It is the act of granting entry that confers legal permanent residency status.

Thus, the government would be violating the prohibition on discrimination in section 202(a)(1)(A) just as much by denying entry as by denying visas. An immigration officer cannot deny entry based on nationality without also discriminating in the issuance of status to an immigrant at a port of entry.

Why “visa” cannot be interpreted narrowly

Not only is this interpretation based on the government’s own longstanding regulations, the interpretation of section 202 that the government offered during appeal would require it to adopt a variety of other positions that are at odds with the statute and regulations.

If “visa” in section 202 was interpreted to mean only the visa document, then adjustments of status applications for persons inside the United States would be exempt from the numerical limitations on visas in that section and in section 203. The clear intent of Congress was to control the number of persons who are entering the United States, not visa documents issued, and so the department has always held this view. Thus, the U.S. attorney in oral arguments before the district court admitted that per-country limits were about allocating how many people the United States allows “to come into the country.”

If the person is determined ineligible to enter, the visa is revoked at this point, and the State Department considers it not to have been issued at all. In other words, the department only counts “status” determinations against the visa caps, despite the fact that the section never mentions status. It is interesting to note on this point that the original version of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 actually had consular officers grant immigrants “status” abroad, which could be revoked at entry if they were deemed ineligible.

Why the government cannot be biased in entry but not in visa issuance

This interpretation does not undermine the distinction between visa issuance and admission in section 101(a)(4) because a determination of inadmissibility under section 212 applies equally to admission at the border as it does to visa issuance abroad. Immigration officers inside the country rely on the same criteria to determine eligibility to enter that consular officials use to determine eligibility for an immigrant visa. A person granted an immigrant visa in an unbiased manner would not be entitled to enter at the border. He would just be entitled to similar unbiased treatment.

This proves that the law forecloses the idea that the government could be unbiased in visa issuance but not in entry. This is also why all presidential proclamations under 212(f) are immediately printed in the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual. The manual explains, “Aliens who have engaged in conduct covered by a Presidential Proclamation issued under the authority of section 212(f) may also be inadmissible under other sections of the INA or other statutes. These statutory inadmissibilities are to be considered prior to determining whether a Presidential Proclamation applies.”

The executive order itself admits that the State Department will be enforcing it by suspending visa issuance just as much as the Department of Homeland Security by suspending entry, and indeed, it has suspended visa issuance to nationals of those seven countries.

Another problem for the government’s view is that it implies that Congress intended to create a system in which it required non-discrimination for applicants abroad, but not applicants at ports of entry or inside the United States. Indeed, their argument would free the government to discriminate based on nationality in adjustment of status applications for immigrants who are residing inside the United States right now, even without a presidential determination that they are a “detriment.”

Not only is this plainly absurd, this would create the bizarre result that immigrants adjusting in the United States would have fewer protections against discrimination than immigrant applicants abroad. This leaves the government arguing that immigrants abroad have fewer constitutional rights than immigrants in the United States, while somehow also having more statutory rights.

This obviously cannot have been what Congress intended. In fact, as I have previously explained, Congress debated this very question of whether ending discrimination would allow unvetted individuals to enter the United States from certain countries where information is difficult to obtain. They rejected this argument. No member of Congress in 1965—whether they were for the bill or against it—believed that President Johnson could then have immediately undone their work with a presidential proclamation. "

Ryan is a snake in the grass--write to him --write to anyone and everyone you can think of to stop this two faced whatever from achieving his goals--he needs to remember that some day he may want to continue in his office--time for GOP to stop being idiots

Replace bummercare

Paul Ryan and other Republican need to wake up and smell the roses

Jeff,

They can't smell the roses for the camel crap. 

Have you ever been around one? I have and they smell so bad you couldn't smell ammonia if it were under your nose. 

The Hill Regulation
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Email
 

Welcome to Overnight Regulation, your daily rundown of news from the federal agencies, Capitol Hill, the courts and beyond. It's Thursday evening here in Washington.

 
 

THE BIG STORIES:

The Senate's top Democrat is demanding that President Trump withdraw Andrew Puzder's nomination to lead the Labor Department.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Thursday called Puzder "probably the most anti-worker nominee to the Department of Labor ever."

"Donald Trump campaigned on behalf of the working men and women," Schumer said. "He said he was going to represent them. The nomination of Mr. Puzder represents broken promise after broken promise. Donald Trump has amazing gall, to have campaigned the way he did, and then put this man as nominee for secretary of Labor.

"They ought to withdraw the nomination of Puzder before he further embarrasses this administration and further exposes the hypocrisy of President Trump, saying one thing to the workers of America, and then doing another," he added.

Puzder will appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Feb. 16 for his long-awaited confirmation hearing.

The new date marks the fourth time that the CKE Restaurants CEO's hearing was rescheduled. It was delayed last week to give Puzder time to separate himself from CKE, which owns the Carl's Jr. and Hardee's fast food chains.

Puzder's nomination has stirred criticism because of his views on issues such as sick leave and overtime pay for workers. He admitted on Monday that he had once employed an undocumented immigrant as a housekeeper, but said he fired the woman when he learned she wasn't eligible to work in the U.S.

"Unfortunately, you could not have picked a worse nominee to uphold these goals than Andrew Puzder," Schumer continued.

"Everything in his career is antithetical to the goals of the Department of Labor. If there was a missions statement for Puzder's career, it would be the exact opposite of the mission statement of the Department of Labor."

Click here for the story.

Did you hear Bill O'really tonight.  He said something to the effect that anyone who believes Soros gave money to their campaigns is stupid.  He said the report was baseless having no credible source.  But O'really gave no prove that he ran down a list of sources and found them without credit.  Where is his proof.  Soros probably pays O'really on the side directly or indirectly.

Per Rupert Murdoch Son's who took over Fox News after Roger Ailes left.....

Per Breitbart News 6th Feb 2016

"A Rubio spokesman did admit that the FEC filing is correct—that Rubio took a $2,700 donation from Donfeld. The Rubio spokesman argues that Donfeld donated “almost exclusively” to GOP candidates over the years—which is mostly true, as Donfeld has given to people like Ryan, Rubio, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), and 2012 GOP Ohio Senate nominee Josh Mandel, among others. But Donfeld, whom the Rubio spokesman points out and as Breitbart News mentioned earlier in this piece, left the Soros firm after making this donation to Rubio, has donated to Democrats like Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), and a failed Democratic congressional candidate in Arizona’s 9th congressional district in 2012, Andrei Cherny.

Anti-Trump Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a failed one-time GOP presidential nominee from 2008, got $2,500 from an executive at the Soros firm, while Boehner—who resigned amid a coup from conservatives—raked in $2,600 from an executive at the Soros firm.

McCain’s $2,500 this cycle came from Donfeld of Soros Fund Management on Sept. 23, 2015. In previous cycles, McCain has taken cash directly from George Soros himself—a $1,000 donation on June 2, 1999—and from others with the firm, including a $1,000 donation from Bessent on March 13, 2000, a $2,300 donation from Soros Fund Management’s Michael Au on Dec. 27, 2007, a $1,000 donation from Duncan Hennes of Soros Fund Management on March 13, 2000, and a $2,300 donation from Soros Fund Management’s Joshua Berkowitz on Jan. 15, 2008. McCain’s spokeswoman, Julie Tarallo, has not responded to multiple requests for comment from Breitbart News.

Boehner’s $2,600 donation this cycle came from Bessent of Soros Fund Management on Feb. 12, 2015. The media relations department at Reynolds American, the tobacco company of which Boehner joined the board after resigning from Congress in 2015, has not responded to a request for comment on his behalf.

Now former Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV), the 2016 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Nevada who lost his election after he withdrew his endorsement of Trump in the general election, also received $2,500 from an executive at Soros Fund Management, while Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)—a “Never Trump” congressman who voted for a third-party candidate because he refused to support the GOP nominee for president—received $1,000 from an executive at the Soros family firm.

Heck’s $2,500 donation on Sept. 29, 2016, came from Soros Fund Management’s Sender Cohen. According to the Israel on Campus Coalition, another organization for which Sender Cohen serves as director, he is a “Portfolio Manager, the Director of Research and member of the Management Committee at Soros Fund Management.” Heck’s spokesman from the campaign has not responded to a request for comment on Monday.

Curbelo’s $1,000 donation came on June 5, 2015, from Paul Sohn, a former executive with Soros Fund Management. Sohn had already left the firm earlier in the year, as it was reported on CNBC in January 2015 that Sohn had left Soros Fund Management after his involvement in a controversial investment. That is months before he reported on this June 2015 Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing for this Curbelo donation that his employer was Soros Fund Management. A Curbelo spokeswoman has not responded to a request for comment.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the House GOP conference chairwoman, got $1,000 from an official with Soros Fund Management. The independent and wildly unsuccessful general election candidate Evan McMullin—whom Trump has called “McMuffin” in jest after his failure—is a former staffer of hers. McMullin, who turned out to fail fantastically on election day despite media fanfare about his candidacy, was previously a McMorris Rodgers staffer as chief policy director for nearly two years in the House GOP conference before his whimsical bid at the presidency that went nowhere and had essentially zero impact on the race. Rodgers’ $1,000 donation this cycle came from Alexander Cohen of Soros Fund Management on March 13, 2015.

“The Congresswoman receives thousands of donations from individuals in Washington State and across the country who believe in her mission to restore the people’s voice in government,” a spokesman for McMorris Rodgers told Breitbart News.

The spokesman also says that McMorris Rodgers has no responsibility for McMullin, and cut ties with him as soon as media outlets reported his intention to run as an independent against Trump.

“The House Republican Conference has zero knowledge of his intentions,” a McMorris Rodgers spokesman said when McMullin launched his bid.

The only few Republicans who received Soros Fund Management cash but did support Trump were Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY), and Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA). Royce received $2,500 from the firm, Johnson and Grassley each received $1,000, and Donovan received $300. Johnson’s $1,000 donation came on April 15, 2016, from Alexander Cohen of Soros Fund Management, as did Grassley’s, which came on Oct. 13, 2015. Donovan’s $300 donation came from Christopher Rich of Soros Fund Management on April 20, 2015. Royce’s $2,500 donation came from Sender Cohen of Soros Fund Management on March 31, 2016. Spokespersons for Johnson, Donovan and Royce have not responded to Breitbart News’s requests for comment. A spokesperson for Grassley did not have a comment."

if Soros and his buddies doesn't go to jail Donald Trump is going to have a hard time in the white houe

Bill ( The Blow Hard ) O'Reilly is a lying pile of garbage ! How do I know this , because he has carried the water for the fraud and usurper barack hussein obama since 2008 . Lie number one , Bill ( the Blow Hard ) O'Reilly said the reason the fraud and usurper barack hussein obama was using social security number 042684425 was because obama's father lived in Connecticut for a short time ,a flat out lie ! Fox News took down that statement from their website the next day . 

THANK you for exposing this, Charles.

that's the reason why I don't listen to O"Reilly

From mrc tv

Don’t tell Elizabeth Warren: Coretta Scott King thanked Jeff Sessio...

Odds that they'll read this speech from the Senate floor?

Read More »

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

BREAKING:   Hillary Clinton Donor Ed Buck Arrested After Another Male Overdoses In His Seedy LA Apartment

Democrat donor and Hillary friend Ed Buck was finally arrested Tuesday night after a third man overdosed in his apartment.

The man who overdosed in Ed Buck’s Los Angeles apartment last week survived, however the other two victims previously died.

Ed Buck will be in court Wednesday.

Ed Buck loves to inject young black gay escorts with methamphetamine — the mother of one of Ed Buck’s victims described it as a fetish.

He was finally arrested after two black gay escorts died in his apartment from overdoses.

KTLA 5 reported:

The prominent Democratic donor and LGBTQ political activist Ed Buck was arrested Tuesday and charged with operating a drug house and providing methamphetamine to a 37-year-old man who overdosed last week, officials said.

Buck was charged with three counts of battery causing serious injury, administering methamphetamine and maintaining a drug house, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. Buck is accused of injecting the victim, who survived, with methamphetamine on Sept. 11.

CBSLA Assignment Desk @KCBSKCALDesk
 

: Democratic donor Ed Buck has been arrested and charged by @LADAOffice. Buck is accused of running a drug den out of his home. @JeffMichaelNews has details on .

Video of Ed Buck getting taken away by Sheriff deputies:

Bill Melugin    @BillFOXLA

BREAKING: Democratic donor Ed Buck has been arrested at his West Hollywood apartment on drug charges, per @WHDLASD. Neighbor on scene tells me Buck is currently in the back of one of the cruisers. Two gay black men previously died of meth overdoses at his apt. @FOXLA

Bill Melugin    @BillFOXLA
 

BREAKING: Here is video of being taken away by deputies following his arrest at his apartment on drug charges tonight. @FOXLA

of another young black gay escort was found at the West Hollywood home of Ed Buck, a top Democrat donor and political activist.

As previously reported, a black gay escort named Gemmel Moore died of a meth overdose at Ed Buck’s West Hollywood home in July of 2017.

The LA County District Attorney’s Office previously declined to prosecute Ed Buck saying the evidence was “insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (Buck) is responsible for the death of Gemmel Moore,” which sparked an outrage from family members and others in the community.

Jasmyne Cannick told FOX and Friends nearly a dozen black men have come forward to speak on their experiences with “serial predator” Ed Buck.
Cannick also went off on the Democrat Party: “Over 77% of black people in California vote Democratic. We vote for Democrats.

It is a shame that when something like this happens, when you have the chair of your state party when at the time of this , Eric Bauman, who was willing to turn a blind eye as well as instruct others not to speak on it. As a black woman, as a black Democrat, I expect more from my party.

Last week, a black male was seen entering Ed Buck’s seedy LA apartment.

Update: Top Democrat Donor Ed Buck Charged with Maintaining Drug House – Police Find HUNDREDS OF PHOTOS of Men in Compromising Positions in His Home

Buck was charged with operating a drug house.

According to the LA Times — Sheriff’s investigators found hundreds of photographs in Buck’s home of men in compromising positions.

Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 @JackPosobiec
 

Sheriff’s investigators found hundreds of photographs in Ed Buck’s home of men in compromising positions

Democratic donor Ed Buck arrested, charged with operating drug house

Buck was charged with three counts of battery causing serious injury, administering methamphetamine and maintaining a drug house, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. Buck...   latimes.com

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service