Billionaire leftist teams up with Democrat attorneys general to bury administration in legal challenges

More than a dozen lawsuits and counting have been filed against President Donald Trump’s executive order that temporarily blocks visas from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. Looking beyond the handful of emotional personal stories that are gaining the media’s sympathy, there is a more predictable political power dynamic at play. The lawsuits largely stem from organizations bankrolled by billionaire leftist George Soros and Democratic state attorneys general.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has carried out a political vendetta against Trump, led 15 other state attorneys general in a joint statement condemning what they called an “unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful executive order.” The Democratic AGs also said, “Religious liberty has been, and always will be, a bedrock principle of our country and no president can change that truth,” a curious statement from the party that targeted the Little Sisters of the Poor.

“It shouldn’t surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America … Soros has said he wants to bring America down.”

Last August, George Soros’ son, Alex Soros, posted a picture of himself with Schneiderman on Instagram, and wrote, “Great to meet with #newyork attorney general @ericschneiderman who recognized that @realdonaldtrump was a fraud way before many and has courageously taken him on!”

Schneiderman, as well as Democratic attorneys general in Virginia and Massachusetts, intervened in existing lawsuits. The lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson has achieved the most success, bringing the case that blocked the order nationwide.

The lawsuit convinced a federal judge of the state’s standing on the claim the order is “separating Washington families, harming thousands of Washington residents, damaging Washington’s economy, hurting Washington-based companies and undermining Washington’s sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees.”

Judge Blocks Immigration Order Nationwide
Inform
autoplay: on | off

Democrats are even raising money off the lawsuits. In a Facebook post, the Democratic Attorneys General Association said, "Stand with Attorney General Bob Ferguson and all Democratic State Attorneys General fighting for what's right!" It added, "Chip in to support Democratic AGs fighting for progressive rights and freedoms."

Outside of the politicians, Soros' Open Society Foundations, which advocates for open borders, is financing several advocacy groups that initiated litigation against the order.

Leading the way in these lawsuits in several states is the American Civil Liberties Union, which has gotten at least $35.5 million from the Open Society Foundations, according to the Capital Research Center, a Washington think tank that investigates nonprofits.

Soros also gave $4.6 million to the National Immigration Law Center, which has been involved in litigation, according to the CRC; and $621,000 to the Urban Justice Center, which has an appendage known as the International Refugee Assistance Project that has jumped into the lawsuits, according to the CRC.

Judge Who Blocked Trump Action Has Activist PastRobart made a point of saying 'Black Lives Matter' in dispute with ...

"It shouldn't surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America," Matthew Vadum, senior vice president of the CRC, told LifeZette. "Soros has said he wants to bring America down. Flooding the country with Muslim aliens who won't assimilate is one way to do that."

In a Seattle suit, separate from the Washington State case, ABC News reported the American Immigration Council, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild filed a class action complaint on behalf of lawful permanent residents that want their immediate family members that are citizens of the seven countries be able to enter the United States.

Soros' Open Society Foundations gave $425,000 to the American Immigration Council from 2011 through 2013, according to the CRC, which shows Soros' group also gave at least $50,000 to the National Lawyers Guild.

The fact that a lawsuit is politically motivated doesn't mean it lacks legal merits. Republican attorneys general and conservative groups challenged the Obama administration's executive actions. But as the media plays up emotional stories, no one should try to divorce politics from these legal maneuvers.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/soros-fingerprints-all-over-anti...

Related image

Views: 397

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Democrates can now boast how they waste taxpayers money not on building streets and repairing our bridges but in legal battles. They better start wising up and trying to get along with Trump because he has veto power they won't getting anything passes.

Soros is an international Terrorist disguising himself as a philanthropist through his Open Society.org.  In fact he is an Anarchist who should be shut down, He uses his vast wealthe which he stole from his Jewish brethren as he helped the Nazis send them to concentration camps and  gas chambers.  What he is doing in America violates the Alien and Sedition act.  He is evil.  He is the main cause of muslims flooding the EU.ans the US  When Jeff Sessions gets approved as AG. he could do what Russia and Hungary have done and outlaw Soros actions against this country.  His financial Terrorism must be stopped. He is the most disruptive person on the planet

I don't understand why he's still living, having been part of the Nazi SS.  I'm surprised Israel didn't "take him out" decades ago...  WHY was this man ever even allowed to have citizenship in the U.S. to begin with?  Who did he pay off back then?

Hate to burst bubble, but Soros could Not have helped Nazis as he was only 12 years old that is 2017 - 1940.  Well I guess he could at that age, but ??

George Soros – Excerpt of “60 Minutes” Interview – December 20, 1998 with Steve Kroft.  (This Video is not found on the CNN website but has resurfaced on the internet – Watch It Below)

Kroft: You are a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust by posing as a Christian?

Soros: Right.

Kroft: And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps?

Soros: Right, I was 14 years old…

Kroft: …My understanding is you went out with this protector of yours, who swore you were his adopted godson.

Soros: Yes.

Kroft: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from Jews.

Soros: Yes, that’s right.

Kroft: That sounds like an experience that would send lots of folks to the psychiatric couch for many many years. Was it difficult?

Soros: Not at all, not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t see the connection, but it created no problem at all.

Kroft: No feeling of guilt, for example, that I’m Jewish and here I am watching these people go, I could just as easily be one of them that I could be there for example that I should be there, none of that?

Soros: Well, of course, I could be on the other side, or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense I shouldn’t be there…if I weren’t there, of course I wasn’t doing it, but someone else would be taking it away anyhow, whether I was there or not I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. I had no role in taking away property. So I had no guilt.

https://subjectpolitics.com/george-soros-tries-compare-trump-hitler...

Of course he had no guilt.......you need a conscience for that.

good let them burn through the global commies money instead of the taxpayer's

Rush Limbaugh made a good point on 6 Feb 2017 that the way federal judges are appointed is tit-for-tat, and that Crazy Patty Murray was the one who wanted Robart appointed as a judge in exchange for renaming a post office or something just as dumb. Just goes to show that we need to vet judges as much or more than potential terrorists. 

I’m not sure what the closing paragraph of this article means.  If a lawsuit has legal merits, why would political motivation be part of bringing suit?  Justice does not require political motivation and is not helped by it.

 If a suit is predominately and fundamentally politically motivated it discolors any actual legal merit the suit has.  This is so because when political motivation is a part of a law suit, it is action taken for the sake of political ideology, not justice. The political activist is motivated by his convictions, which may or may not include the value of justice. But in any legal proceedings, politics should be kept out of argument referencing only the Constitution.   

Consequently, the paragraph is gratuitous. It has no reason for being included in the article except as an effort to appear “fair minded.”  But if the article is fair it doesn’t need the appearance of fairness.   So, I wonder: how accurate is the entire story?  Is there any truth to it at all or was it fabricated to attack Soros?  If the latter, one should recognize that one cannot fight viciousness by being vicious.

The only thing that strikes me as truly important is the statement by Mr. Vadum, senior vice president of the Capital Research Center, who stated, “It shouldn't surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America.  Soros has said he wants to bring America down.  Flooding the country with Muslim aliens who won't assimilate is one way to do that."

It is the refusal to assimilate that is basic to regarding Muslim refugees with some concern.  If they do not want to reject Sharia law, if they will not recognize freedom for women as well as men, if Muslim women are forbidden education, if genital mutilation continues as an acceptable practice, -- all the rest of that barbaric law – then I do not see why they would want to come  here in the first place.  Which leads me to consider the Temporary Restraining Order valid and law suits against it rather suspect.

 

’m not sure what the closing paragraph of this article means.  If a lawsuit has legal merits, why would political motivation be part of bringing suit?  Justice does not require political motivation and is not helped by it.

 If a suit is predominately and fundamentally politically motivated it discolors any actual legal merit the suit has.  This is so because when political motivation is a part of a law suit, it is action taken for the sake of political ideology, not justice. The political activist is motivated by his convictions, which may or may not include the value of justice. But in any legal proceedings, politics should be kept out of argument referencing only the Constitution.   

Consequently, the paragraph is gratuitous. It has no reason for being included in the article except as an effort to appear “fair minded.”  But if the article is fair it doesn’t need the appearance of fairness.   So, I wonder: how accurate is the entire story?  Is there any truth to it at all or was it fabricated to attack Soros?  If the latter, one should recognize that one cannot fight viciousness by being vicious.

The only thing that strikes me as truly important is the statement by Mr. Vadum, senior vice president of the Capital Research Center, who stated, “It shouldn't surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America.  Soros has said he wants to bring America down.  Flooding the country with Muslim aliens who won't assimilate is one way to do that."

It is the refusal to assimilate that is basic to regarding Muslim refugees with some concern.  If they do not want to reject Sharia law, if they will not recognize freedom for women as well as men, if Muslim women are forbidden education, if genital mutilation continues as an acceptable practice, -- all the rest of that barbaric law – then I do not see why they would want to come  here in the first place.  Which leads me to consider the Temporary Restraining Order valid and law suits against it rather suspect.

I’m not sure what the closing paragraph of this article means.  If a lawsuit has legal merits, why would political motivation be part of bringing suit?  Justice does not require political motivation and is not helped by it.

 If a suit is predominately and fundamentally politically motivated it discolors any actual legal merit the suit has.  This is so because when political motivation is a part of a law suit, it is action taken for the sake of political ideology, not justice. The political activist is motivated by his convictions, which may or may not include the value of justice. But in any legal proceedings, politics should be kept out of argument referencing only the Constitution.   

Consequently, the paragraph is gratuitous. It has no reason for being included in the article except as an effort to appear “fair minded.”  But if the article is fair it doesn’t need the appearance of fairness.   So, I wonder: how accurate is the entire story?  Is there any truth to it at all or was it fabricated to attack Soros?  If the latter, one should recognize that one cannot fight viciousness by being vicious.

The only thing that strikes me as truly important is the statement by Mr. Vadum, senior vice president of the Capital Research Center, who stated, “It shouldn't surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America.  Soros has said he wants to bring America down.  Flooding the country with Muslim aliens who won't assimilate is one way to do that."

It is the refusal to assimilate that is basic to regarding Muslim refugees with some concern.  If they do not want to reject Sharia law, if they will not recognize freedom for women as well as men, if Muslim women are forbidden education, if genital mutilation continues as an acceptable practice, -- all the rest of that barbaric law – then I do not see why they would want to come  here in the first place.  Which leads me to consider the Temporary Restraining Order valid and law suits against it rather suspect.

I’m not sure what the closing paragraph of this article means.  If a lawsuit has legal merits, why would political motivation be part of bringing suit?  Justice does not require political motivation and is not helped by it.

 If a suit is predominately and fundamentally politically motivated it discolors any actual legal merit the suit has.  This is so because when political motivation is a part of a law suit, it is action taken for the sake of political ideology, not justice. The political activist is motivated by his convictions, which may or may not include the value of justice. But in any legal proceedings, politics should be kept out of argument referencing only the Constitution.   

Consequently, the paragraph is gratuitous. It has no reason for being included in the article except as an effort to appear “fair minded.”  But if the article is fair it doesn’t need the appearance of fairness.   So, I wonder: how accurate is the entire story?  Is there any truth to it at all or was it fabricated to attack Soros?  If the latter, one should recognize that one cannot fight viciousness by being vicious.

The only thing that strikes me as truly important is the statement by Mr. Vadum, senior vice president of the Capital Research Center, who stated, “It shouldn't surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America.  Soros has said he wants to bring America down.  Flooding the country with Muslim aliens who won't assimilate is one way to do that."

It is the refusal to assimilate that is basic to regarding Muslim refugees with some concern.  If they do not want to reject Sharia law, if they will not recognize freedom for women as well as men, if Muslim women are forbidden education, if genital mutilation continues as an acceptable practice, -- all the rest of that barbaric law – then I do not see why they would want to come  here in the first place.  Which leads me to consider the Temporary Restraining Order valid and law suits against it rather suspect.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Joe Biden Vows: Give Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare To All Illegal Aliens In U.S.

Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat presidential primary candidate Joe Biden is vowing to give Obamacare, funded by American taxpayers, to all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

During an interview with Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart, Biden forgot that Obamacare technically bans illegal aliens from enrolling in healthcare plans — although illegal aliens are still able to obtain subsidized and free healthcare at Americans’ expense — and promised that under his plan, all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens would be able to get Obamacare.

The exchange went as follows:

DIAZ-BALART: When I … NBC moderated that first debate with you, I didn’t … I don’t recall a clear answer, under your plan should … would the 11, 12 million undocumented immigrants that live in the United States, that have been here many for generations, would they have access …

BIDEN: Yes.

DIAZ-BALART: — to health insurance.

BIDEN: Yes, they … if they can buy into the system like everybody else.

DIAZ-BALART: Because you know, in [Obamacare] they can’t.

BIDEN: Yeah. Yeah, I know. Well they can, that’s my point. They continue to be able to do that.

DIAN-BALART: They cannot under the ObamaCare.

BIDEN: Well and that’s my point, they will though. They will be able to buy into … [illegal aliens] would be able to buy in, just like anyone else could.

Biden joins Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — among other 2020 Democrats — in committing to forcing American taxpayers to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens who arrive in the U.S.

Already, due to loopholes, American taxpayers are spending nearly $20 billion every year to provide illegal aliens with subsidized healthcare, emergency room visits, and other health services.

Under the 2020 Democrats’ plan to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to all illegal aliens living in the U.S., Americans would be billed potentially $660 billion every decade just to cover the costs. Other research has found that the plan would cost Americans at least $23 billion every year.

As Breitbart News has reported, experts have said that giving taxpayer-funded healthcare to effectively all foreign nationals who can make it to America’s borders would drive “strong incentives for people with serious health problems to enter the country or remain longer than their visas allow in order to get government-funded care.”

Despite 2020 Democrats’ continued push for taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, American voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey revealed that the healthcare-for-illegal-aliens plan is the least popular policy position, with opposition from 62 percent of U.S. voters.

Similarly, a CNN poll from July discovered that 63 percent of likely swing voters oppose providing healthcare to illegal aliens, along with nearly 6-in-10 of all likely U.S. voters and 61 percent of moderates. A Rasmussen Reports survey also found that likely voters, by a majority of 55 percent, oppose giving healthcare to even the most low-income illegal aliens.

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service