Jim Lacy Rips Obama Administration, FBI for Surveilling Trump Campaign; Comments on SOTU

In this clip from Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Weekend Breakfast” airing 2/4/18, author/commentator Jim Lacy offers his take on the release of a memo by House Republicans detailing abuses by the FBI and Obama Justice Department to surveil the Trump campaign.

Travis Allen: Attorney General Xavier Becerra Must be Prosecuted for Criminal Obstruction of Justice

SACRAMENTO, CA – Assemblyman Travis Allen called for the US Department of Justice to prosecute Attorney General Xavier Becerra for criminal obstruction of justice after the AG’s public threats on January 18Xavier Becerra to prosecute California business owners that comply with federal law and cooperate with Federal immigration authorities. 

“This goes way beyond the Sanctuary State. Threatening individuals for cooperating with federal law enforcement is criminal obstruction of justice. These are the same tactics that the mafia uses to silence witnesses.”

“I am calling on US Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prosecute Xavier Becerra immediately on obstruction of justice charges. Californians shouldn’t have to decide between following federal law or being prosecuted by state authorities.”

“The law is clear, when it comes to immigration, federal law trumps state law.  Attorney General Xavier Becerra knows this and is purposefully and illegally trying to obstruct justice and keep federal authorities from doing their constitutional duty. California’s businesses are not pawns in Xavier Becerra’s war with the White House. This is beyond outrageous – it’s criminal and must be prosecuted.”

Travel Ban: U.S. Justice Foundation sides with Trump in court fight

President Donald Trump’s travel ban to protect America from foreign terrorists, already backed by a majority of Americans, is gaining key support from independent legal action organizations.

The U.S. Justice Foundation and nearly a dozen other non-profit public interest organizations are offering robust legal support for Travel Ban 3.0, building momentum for a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court later this year. The narrowly tailored presidential order restricted nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen from entering the United States, following a worldwide review of information-sharing practices.

American security is the president’s constitutional responsibility, and Trump’s actions as commander-in-chief fall within long-established legal precedents established under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the U.S. Justice Foundation argues.

“The District Court opinion completely ignored President Trump’s focus on protecting the American people from ‘public-safety’ threats posed by immigrants from the designated countries,” the organizations state in an amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lower Court’s Political Decision by Obama Appointee   

The U.S. Justice Foundation highlights the significant bias and political motives by Honolulu-based U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Kahala Watson, an Obama appointee who initially ruled against the travel ban.

“One cannot help but conclude that Judge Watson rendered a political decision, seeking to preserve the policies of President Trump’s predecessor, his Harvard Law School classmate Barack Obama,” the organization writes in its legal filings in the travel ban case. “Can there be any doubt that President Trump was named as the lead defendant in the complaint not because of any legal necessity, but for political effect?”

Even David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and leading Never Trump figure who voted for Hillary Clinton, believes Watson’s ruling set a “dangerous precedent” and contradicts longstanding constitutional precedents.

“Watson’s imaginative reasoning in Hawaii v. Trump asserts a new judicial power to disregard formal law if the president’s personal words create a basis for mistrusting his motives,” Frum writes at The Atlantic. “Frankly, under any other president than Donald Trump, it seems impossible that a federal judge would have expressed such certitude—or granted their requested order.”

In addition to the judge’s lack of objectivity, the Hawaiian politician that filed the court challenge to President Trump’s travel ban has used the case to advance his political career.

“I’ve ended up being in court over and over again to stop some of the different actions that have been taken by the Trump administration,” Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said in launching his 2018 campaign for a congressional seat vacated by Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, D-Hawaii.

Lack of Standing: Grandmother Arrives Despite Ban

Although routinely attacked on cable news and falsely described as a “Muslim ban,” Trump’s travel ban enjoys broad support from the American people. According to a Rasmussen poll taken last June, 52 percent of Americans consider Trump’s travel ban a proper security measure designed to keep terrorists out of the country. Last July, a Politico-Morning Consult poll found that “a clear majority of voters” back President Trump’s travel ban.

Rather than overturn the president’s popular executive order, the nation’s highest court could choose to sidestep the controversy on procedural grounds.

Before any court considers the merits of a case, a plaintiff must establish an “injury in fact” to have standing in the case. The challenge to the travel ban is on shaky legal ground, according to the U.S. Justice Foundation, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

“Being personally offended by government action has never been sufficient to confer standing for a federal judge to second guess the President of the United States — at least before 2017 challenges to President Trump’s two Executive Orders,” the U.S. Justice Foundation argues. “Although this country may now have entered an era where people often believe that they can go to court any time their feelings have been hurt, the lawyers and the district court should have known better.”

One plaintiff, the State of Hawaii, claimed standing based on the hypothetical loss of tuition from potential students from the affected countries. Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer for the New Yorker and senior legal analyst for CNN, agrees that “the harm to the universities is pretty attenuated.”

He adds, “And it’s worth noting that the Justices of the Supreme Court (and Chief Justice John Roberts in particular) have been sticklers on the standing rule and haven’t hesitated to toss cases on this ground.”

Another plaintiff, Hawaiian imam Ismail Elshikh, is originally from Egypt, a country not covered by the travel ban. Elshikh claimed injury when his Syrian grandmother was unable to enter the United States, now a moot point. The grandmother, Wafa Yahia, arrived in the United States last August, according to Associated Press reports, thereby proving the travel ban did not injure Elshikh.

Last December, President Trump secured an initial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, which overruled activist judges and lifted injunctions blocking the president’s executive order to enhance vetting of foreign nationals attempting to enter the United States. A final ruling is expected later this year.

 Since 1980, the U.S. Justice Foundation has submitted testimony to the U.S. Senate on every Supreme Court appointee and sponsored conferences on a variety of important legal issues. Other organizations supporting U.S. Justice Foundation’s position include Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Public Advocate of the United States, Restoring Liberty Action Committee, English First, English First Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center.

download

Jim Lacy on Australian diplomat and Russian collusion claims

In this video airing January 1, 2018, Jim Lacy comments on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on reports of an Australian diplomat’s meeting in a London bar with a Trump volunteer in 2016 at which Russian hacking of Hillary Clinton’s emails was allegedly discussed.

Trump “by the numbers” is the Prosperity President

At year’s end we can expect the pundits and the mass media that hates our President to begin their assessments of Donald Trump’s first year as president.  The truth about Trump’s first year in office, however, is that he is proving to be the Prosperity President. 

Our nation has seen economic growth of 3% or more in the last two quarters of Trump’s first year.  This compares to -4.5% in the first quarter of Obama Administration.  The rate of real economic growth is the single greatest determinate of both America’s strength as a nation and the well-being of the economy.   But in Obama’s America in his first full year in office in 2009, the GDP growth rate was -2.8%.  In other words, the economy contracted 2.8%. 

Economists profess that the ideal GDP growth rate is between 2-3%.  Less than 2% will not create new jobs for the growing labor force.  More than 3% means the economy is headed toward an asset bubble.  This situation generally creates inflation and rising prices.  Sometimes higher prices will cool off demand.  More often, the bubble bursts, and the economy descends into recession.  Trump’s 3% growth rate over the last six months is absolutely perfect medicine to improve an ailing “Obama” economy.  In fact, Obama’s record on economic growth will be considerably worse than that of the much-maligned George W. Bush.  Bush 43 delivered GDP growth averaging 2.10%, with two years (2004 and 2005) above 3.0%.  But Obama hardly nudged the economy above 1%, rarely near 2%, and averaged a limp 1.5% over eight years as President.  This performance ranks Obama as the fourth worst president in history by the economics, and the only president in history to never see economic growth at 3% or more in any one quarter of his term.

In contrast, Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5% .

According to Fox Business News channel’s Maria Bartiromo, since Trump’s inauguration, six billion dollars in new wealth has been added to stock market.  Companies like Boeing are now investing hundreds of millions in new manufacturing facilities.  The Dow Jones average up 25% in first year of office.  

While Trump can point to other first year achievements, such as Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch being confirmed along with a record number of 19 federal judges with lifetime appointments, a major tax cut bill, ISIS is removed from Iraq, huge reductions in illegal immigration, ending the ObamaCare mandate, deregulation and more, all this has occurred while according to the Media Research Center – 91% of the news coverage on Trump in September through November by the major networks was negative. 

Obama may have been personally popular but his policies were not.  Trump remains much more popular than Hillary Clinton in public opinion polls, something the media won’t give him credit for, but his policies are surely more popular than Obama’s.  Not only are they popular, they are delivering for the American people, and among the top deliverables is prosperity and economic growth.  Trump is proving himself to be the Prosperity President.

donald-trump-3

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from CPR!

As this year closes, the editors at California Political Review wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Happy New Year!  During 2017, California Political Review offered over 1,200,000 Page views of content on this website to readers, and our Facebook Page grew to a total of over 21,700 fans!  We thank you for helping us to be a success and taking time to read what we have to offer, and look forward to continuing to do so in the coming year!IMG_3298

Bias in Russia Probe, Tax Cuts and More, Jim Lacy on “Weekend Breakfast”

California Political Review Publisher Jim Lacy comments on the week’s top political news in America, including bias found in the Special Counsel investigation on Russia, tax cuts, the impact of the Alabama Senate election, and more on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Sunday morning show, “Weekend Breakfast” in this nine minute segment airing Sunday morning, December 17, 2017.

 

Gustavo Arellano threatened me

There is a controversy on social media going on regarding the new ownership of the LA Weekly newspaper.   But Gustavo Arellano, a former writer for the OC Weekly and Voice of Orange County, threatened me from participating in the debate on social media by tweeting to me after I made a comment:

“But with you popping in, don’t get @RScottMoxley interested!”

R. Scott Moxley describes himself as a person whose “award-winning investigative journalism has touched nerves for two decades.”  Moxley’s pieces include exposes, sometimes targeting conservatives, like me.  So, what Arellano was conveying to me in his tweet, now deleted, and blocked from his account, is that if I had anything more to say about the LA Weekly newspaper ownership issue, that I could draw a retaliatory negative story from his friend Moxley at the OC Weekly.

Journalism is great when it “touches nerves” and exposes hidden truths.  But journalists are quite shameful individuals when they threaten to use their contacts to suppress public participation in debate.  Yet it is very clear that Gustavo Arellano intended to bully me into silence, and for this he deserves to be outed for the bully he is, and he owes me, and his profession, and even R. Scott Moxley, an apology.

Here is Arellano’s tweet threatening me:

GustavoArellano (@GustavoArellano)

12/3/17, 10:13 AM

@JamesVLacy1 @LAWeekly @OCWeekly Yeah, no. But with you popping in, don’t get @RScottMoxley interested!

Gustavo Arellano

Gustavo Arellano

Six Women Accuse Democrat Assemblyman of Sex Harrassment

California State Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra (D-Pacoima) announced Tuesday that he will resign next year after six women accused him of making unwanted sexual advances and unwelcome statements toward them.

The six women told the Los Angeles Times that Bocanegra sexually harassed them after the Assembly Rules Committee disciplined him for similar behavior in 2009.

The accusations date back to when Bocanegra, 46, served as a chief of staff, but he has also faced more recent allegations around the time he ran for office, and most recently while serving as a state legislator.

The women accused Bocanegra of a range of offenses, such as initiating unsolicited physical contact and emailing them soliciting dates.

Read the story here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/21/raul-bocanegra-six-women-accuse-democrat-california-assemblyman-sexual-harassment/

 

 

Tax cuts, Alabama election: Jim Lacy comments on Australian Broadcasting’s “Weekend Breakfast”

California Political Review publisher Jim Lacy sums up this week’s national political news on tax cuts and the Alabama Senate election for Australian TV’s Sunday show, “Weekend Breakfast.”