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: 386

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 Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Fact Check:   'Joe Biden Claims ‘We Didn’t Lock People Up In Cages’

CLAIM: Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed, on immigration: “We didn’t lock people up in cages.”

VERDICT: FALSE. The “cages” were built by the Obama-Biden administration.

Univision moderator Jorge Ramos asked Biden at the third Democrat debate at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas, why Latinos should trust him after the Obama administration continued deporting “undocumented immigrants.”

Biden claimed that the Obama administration’s policies were more humane than those of President Donald Trump: “We didn’t lock people up in cages,” he said.

In fact, the “cages” were built by the Obama administration to deal with a surge of unaccompanied minors who crossed the border illegally in 2014.

Originally, the Obama administration was “warehousing” children — literally — in overwhelmed Border Patrol facilities. Breitbart News broke the story of the surge, which was partly triggered by Obama’s policy of allowing illegal alien children who entered the country as minors to stay in the country (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA).

Above image credit: AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, Pool, File

The above photo was published by the Associated Press in June 2014, and the photo below is of Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, touring a Border Patrol facility with “cages.”


Above: Border Patrol officers escort Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Gov. Jan Brewer through the department’s Nogales processing facility for immigrant children. (Photo courtesy Barry Bahler/Department of Homeland Security)

The “cages” are chain-link enclosures in Border Patrol processing facilities that are meant to protect children from adults in custody. They are not permanent accommodations.

In mid-2018, as the Trump administration began enforcing a “zero tolerance” policy that stopped the “catch-and-release” policy of letting illegal aliens go after they were arrested. Detaining adults and children meant that children had to be processed separately; the enclosures prevented adults from harming children.

As Breitbart News reported at the time, children were not housed in “cages.” They were processed and then taken to shelters, where they were given medical care, toiletries, education, recreation, and counseling, and where staff attempted to find relatives or sponsors to whom they could be released.

Democrats began tweeting images of “kids in cages” to condemn the Trump administration. Journalists, too, shared those images.

One problem: they were taken during the Obama administration.

Public outrage at the images led President Trump to end the policy, and require families to be detained together.

Democrats keep repeating the mistake, however: in July, they had to delete a tweet that used an image from the Obama era and cited the “inhumane treatment” of children by the Trump administration.

Republicans argue that not detaining illegal aliens is actually the cruel policy, because it encourages migrants to undertake a dangerous journey, often guided by cartels and smugglers.

As Breitbart News’ Alana Mastrangelo noted recently:

But what’s worse than “cages,” however, are reports of migrant children also being handed over to human traffickers during the Obama administration — while Biden was vice president — according to the New York Times. Between October 2013 and July 2015 alone, nearly 80,000 unaccompanied children from Central American countries were detained by U.S. authorities.

It remains unclear how many of the tens of thousands of children were handed over to human traffickers — including sex traffickers — during that span of nearly two years, as those cases are reportedly not tracked.

“Others were ransomed by the very smugglers to whom their families paid thousands of dollars to sneak them into the United States,” reported the New York Times in 2015, during Obama’s presidency and Biden’s vice presidency. “Some lost limbs during the journey or found themselves sold into sexual slavery.”

Biden told voters in South Carolina last month that he would close all border detention facilities, guaranteeing that the migrant flow would continue.

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service