Life And Liberty News


Chaos continues to unfold over the Democratic primary results in Iowa.

The party is claiming unspecified “errors” is forcing them to reevaluate last night’s results. But rumors are swirling that the IDP is trying to cover a shock win by a far-left candidate. Already news is surfacing that Joe Biden had a brutal night.

His campaign is trying to spin the results as a win, but the writing might be on the wall.

Let’s go all the way back to early 2019, before Joe Biden announced his candidacy for president. You might remember all the ugly news about how he treats women. Numerous women—all liberal—came out of the woodwork to accuse the former vice president of “inappropriate touching,” among other things.

It looked like there was a concerted effort to discourage the man from entering the presidential race. But he did it anyway and was quickly christened the “frontrunner” by many in the establishment media. We all knew the truth though. Even though Biden was running against far-left socialists and virtual no-names, he couldn’t break out as the undisputed favorite, even after months of campaigning.

In more recent weeks, the Democrats were shocked as polls revealed Bernie Sanders, not Biden, was taking the lead. Seems like liberal voters are not impressed by what they’ve seen of Biden. (The fact that they are backing a radical communist instead just shows you how insane the party has become.)

Now, with the first state primary ballots cast, chaos is erupting. The Iowa Democratic Party refuses to announce the results of last night’s election, claiming there was an “error.” Some speculate the party leaders did not like what they saw and are trying to “rig” the results.

But what we do know is that turnout for Joe Biden was shockingly low, even compared to modest estimates. The candidate is showing a brave face, but the jig seems to be up.

Former Vice President Joe Biden pledged to continue his quest for the Democrat nomination on Monday after anecdotal evidence suggested a poor showing in the Iowa Caucuses…

“The Iowa Democratic Party is working to get the results straight … from our indication it’s going to close,” Biden told supporters in Des Moines, Iowa. “We’re going to walk out here with our share of delegates. We don’t know exactly what it is yet, but we feel good about where we are.”

A number of unofficial results released to the media over the course of the evening had Biden losing ground to his progressive rivals, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), in Iowa’s large urban precincts. [Source: Breitbart]

According to some, Biden is not viable in precincts he needed to have a chance. Some say he might not even end up in the top three winners of the night. Others say he might leave Iowa with very little success, draining any momentum he needs to tackle New Hampshire and beyond.

This is pretty remarkable for many reasons. First, many Democrats considered Biden the only worthwhile option for taking on Trump in November. He is the only “moderate” in a crowded field of far-left socialists. Plus, he was Obama’s former VP, which might be worth something to some voters.

Second, if Biden does lose to Sanders or Warren, is spells greater doom for the Democrats.

The party is breaking left hard, embracing extreme policies like Medicare-for-All and socialism. At a time when capitalism is working, with record unemployment and wage growth, Democrat voters want to take that all away and embrace a system that has failed all over the world.

Do you think that will convince the rest of the country? We’ve already seen countless independents and Democrats abandon the left to join the Trump train. The people still in the Democratic Party seem determined to jump off the cliff of radical socialism—ensuring they will never win over most Americans again.

No matter how you slice it, it doesn’t look good for Democrats heading for November.

Not that I’m broken up about it.

Bernie Sanders claims he is a “Democratic Socialist” who prioritizes environmentalism and economic equality. He wants to heavily tax billionaires and give away their wealth through government programs. All so we can be equal, right? But Bernie has a dirty little secret he doesn’t want his socialist supporters to know about. Here it is.

Ah, Bernie. He tries so hard to appear as a “man of the people.” His bogus socialist platform is aimed at appealing to disenfranchised workers and selfish college students—who think they deserve something for nothing. He claims to be “woke,” so he can bamboozle Millennial and Zoomer social justice warriors, who hate the rich for their success.

Sanders attacks Donald Trump, saying the billionaire-turned president doesn’t care about regular people. Oh, really? Then why did President Trump score some of the most significant trade deals in American history? Trade deals specifically designed to bring jobs and investment to American soil? And why did Donald Trump pass criminal reform—helping thousands of incarcerated Americans (who can’t even vote for him)?

But Bernie has plenty of secrets he doesn’t want his supporters to know about. Like, while he rails against the richest “one percent” of our society, he himself is considered a member of this group. He is worth millions and owns numerous homes. He often makes a show of flying regular airlines and associating with us common folk, but how much he paid for private jets will outrage his base.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that Sanders’ campaign spent an astounding $1.2 million on private jets during the last quarter of 2019 — more, even, than former Vice President Joe Biden and billionaire presidential candidate, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Sanders’ Federal Election Commission filings reveal that the “Democratic socialist” shelled out $1,199,579 to Apollo Jets, LLC, a “luxury private jet charter service,” per the Free Beacon, even though his own campaign views private air travel as one of the top contributors to climate change (and as a luxury of the rich, to boot). The campaign paid an additional $23,941 to a Virginia-based private pilot service. [Source: Daily Wire]

Uh-oh! Bernie Sanders spent $1,200,000 on private flights, just in the last quarter of 2019 alone! That’s more than what Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg paid.

This is pretty bad for several reasons. One, the guy is pushing radical environmental policy. Like all 2020 Democrats, Sanders wants to impose heavy environmental regulations on American businesses. Much like Obama’s, these regulations will function like stealth taxes, stifling innovation and causing our economy to crash. Sanders says it’s all in the name of “saving” the earth.

But if he’s so determined to punish us to help the environment, why is he flying on gas-guzzling (and carbon-emitting) private jets?

Worse than that, Sanders pretends to be “one of us.” He has been photographed flying on commercial airlines in the coach seats (and often in first-class). His supporters make a big deal about how he refuses to be treated better than anyone else.
I guess, when no one’s looking, he’s taking out the private jet for a spin. Not only is he spending a fortune on private jet flights, but he’s spent nearly twice the amount of other Democrat candidates.

Kind of puts all those “I’m asking you for your support” ads from Bernie into perspective, huh? He was begging supporters for cash—because he spent all his on jets!

Not only that, but his campaign has “stepped up” its use of private jets in 2020. In order to get back and forth from Iowa to D.C. (to attend Senate impeachment hearings), Sanders has used private jet service Apollo Jets.

Not very green and not very equal of him? Sanders bombards online users for contributions, yet he spends the cash—not on meaningful campaign efforts—but fancy flights on private jets.

Isn’t that the very thing he criticizes other “elites” of doing?

Donald Trump may be a billionaire, but at least he means what he says. He cares about regular Americans—and has the record to prove it.

The Inspector General’s long-awaited report on the FBI’s Russian investigation is soon to be released. Patriots have been waiting a long time to learn just what Obama’s FBI was doing during the 2016 Election. Word of what this report contains has already been reaching the public. And it’s shaking up the DOJ.

It’s no secret that, during the 2016 Election, “deep state” operatives did everything they could to stop Trump from winning. We know former FBI agent Peter Strzok was texting about an “insurance plan” that would have prevented Trump from entering office. He’s one of at least many people from the last administration who apparently launched a scheme to undermine our democracy.

We know all about how they used the bogus Steele dossier to acquire a warrant to spy on Trump staffer Carter Page. They violated his 4th Amendment Rights to find dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. But how far did all this go? This led to the Mueller Russian probe, a two-year-long hoax that proved a failure for the Democrats.

The DOJ’s Inspector General conducted a probe to uncover possible misconduct during the election. Horowitz has been sitting on his report for months—and Americans have been getting antsy. We want to know just what went on. And if there were crimes committed, we want justice.

Now, as the report is about to be released, we’re learning some shocking things.

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog is set to release a highly anticipated report Monday that is expected to document misconduct — including the deliberate falsification of at least one key document — during the investigation into President Trump’s 2016 campaign…

Sources told Fox News in October that Durham’s probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation — and Horowitz’s report will shed light on why Durham has been leading a criminal inquiry.

Horowitz has forwarded to Durham evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI’s secretive surveillance of former Trump adviser Carter Page in 2016 and 2017 — enough to change the substantive meaning of the document. [Source: Fox News]

It looks like this report will confirm AG Barr’s suspicions that spying went on during the 2016 Election. What Horowitz found has been passed on to Durham, Barr’s pit bull. He’s been looking into the entire campaign against Trump that went on from the election through early 2017. His case has turned into a full-blown criminal investigation. Meaning, heads are going to roll.

We already know that the IG report will prove misconduct went on. An FBI lawyer altered a key piece of evidence in order to mislead the FISA court. All so they would rubber-stamp a warrant to monitor Carter Page.

But clearly more went on that we don’t know about. There seems to have been a wide-ranging attempt by FBI, DOJ, and even CIA agents to undermine the 2016 Election. These partisan officials apparently were trying to help Hillary Clinton win, by going after Trump’s people.

Some reports indicate that they tried to entrap a few Trump staffers with promises of “dirt” on Clinton. It’s clear these agents were laying the groundwork for what would become the Russian probe. Perhaps they were trying to set up Trump and his team—so the House Democrats could impeach him later.

Which is the very thing Democrats are doing right now.

Bigger questions loom, of course. Were these agents working alone? Was Hillary Clinton involved? Or, more importantly, was this approved by President Obama himself?

As Democrats accuse Trump of breaking the law to win, we see a much bigger scheme to take down our democracy. One conducted by many Democrats, across government.

Perhaps this is why they’ve been pushing their bogus Ukraine impeachment all these months. They want to distract America from the real crimes they committed.

Can you imagine the outrage if the Democrats are exposed as doing the very thing (and worse) they have accused Trump of?

We just have to wait and see.

House Democrats went all-in with their push to impeach President Trump. They banked on a flimsy whistleblower complaint to be the thing that finally takes him down. But they were hasty and stupid.

Now, Americans are outraged that the left would stoop so low. But there’s good news, for Republicans. Thanks to Pelosi’s impeachment push, a new GOP platform has raked in some serious donations.

The latest push by the Democrats to impeach Trump just might be the most pathetic yet. They spent millions of dollars and over two years trying to find a connection between Trump and Russia. All so they could use that as a reason to remove him from office. They failed.

There was nothing really left to for them use to impeach Donald Trump. On top of that, he was winning again and again for Americans. Add to that the fact that every last 2020 Democrat is a dud, the party knew Trump would get re-elected.

So, what is a corrupt, communist party like the Democrats do it? Rush into an impeachment inquiry before getting all the facts!

The impeachment push will blow up in the Democrats’ faces, as so many other schemes have. In fact, the fallout of this agenda will be a net win for Donald Trump. How do I know that? We already reported on how President Trump raised over $13 million in just one day after Pelosi announced her suicide-by-impeachment.
Since then, a new GOP fundraising platform has been doing gangbusters.

WinRed, the new GOP online fundraising platform designed to compete with Democrats in the battle for small-dollar campaign donations, has raised more than $30 million since launching three months ago, with top officials crediting the Democrats’ impeachment push for a big spike in fundraising over the last week…

In an interview, WinRed’s president, Gerrit Lansing, said the Democrats’ moves to ramp up impeachment efforts against Trump “helped a lot,” saying fundraising numbers “spiked” after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement of a formal inquiry last week…

“It just poured gas on the situation where there is a ton of money being raised in all levels and all campaigns,” Lansing said. [Source: Fox News ]

Democrats should be sweating bullets right about now. This new, untested fundraising platform was able to take in over $30 million last quarter. $13.7 million of that was just from the last few days, after Pelosi’s announcement.

What does that tell you? It tells me that Americans are fed up with Democrats’ underhanded scheme to impeach Donald Trump.

We know that he did nothing wrong. He is one of the few leaders in D.C. actually making good on his promises.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have done nothing over the last few years. Except waste our money, of course.

President Trump is known for rocking the fundraising charts. He has built a war chest for his campaign, through mostly small-dollar donations. That’s pretty key. To raise millions of dollars from contributions smaller than $200 means you have many passionate supporters ready to get you re-elected.

Democrats used to boast about their small-dollar, “grassroots” systems. They were able to get regular Americans to dish our small sums of money to build up their funds. But that’s all changing. More Americans are realizing that Democrats aren’t interested in helping them out. Democrats are putting globalists and special interests ahead of hard-working Americans.

It’s no surprise many are jumping ship and dishing out cash to Trump and the GOP.

WinRed’s funds will go to help Republicans win key races in 2020. It will help get more Trump-supporting leaders in Congress. It’s high time we got rid of every last swamp dweller in Washington.

We demand leaders who will back the president’s vision and actually put Americans first.

It may seem like the opposite, but the Democrats’ impeachment push is helping that become a reality. By showing America how little they care about us, Democrats are ensuring none of them will be left after the 2020 Election.

So keep pushing an unjust impeachment process, Pelosi. You’re making sure the GOP wins big in 2020.

A friend of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford has been reported saying that the story of the alleged assault “didn’t make any sense,” and claimed she was threatened with a smear campaign if she did not support it.

Ford had confirmed that her high school friend, Leland Keyser, was at the party that took place in 1982 where she claims Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

However, in a new book titled The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, written by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, Keyser is quoted as saying, “I don’t have any confidence in the story. Those facts together I don’t recollect, and it just didn’t make any sense.”

“It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she’s getting home,” Keyser recalled. “I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.”

Jan Crawford of CBS News then reported via Twitter that Keyser claimed “Ford’s allies pressured her” to support the accusation against Kavanaugh and was threatened with a “smear campaign” if she did not comply:
“We report tonight the real bombshell: Christine Ford’s close HS friend (who Ford says was at the party when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her) said Ford’s story is not believable and told the FBI Ford’s allies pressured her, threatened her with a smear campaign to say otherwise.”

This report comes after the most recent false allegation against Justice Kavanaugh were quickly scooped up by top Democratic Presidential candidates before they were embarrassed by the news that they were rapidly spreading lies.

Breitbart News reported early on that several Democrat presidential candidates were calling for Justice Kavanaugh to be impeached after the Times published an article containing slanderous claims that he had pulled his pants down and thrust his penis at a female student during a party in college.

CBS Evening News tweeted on the matter:
“A new sexual misconduct allegation against SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh fueled impeachment calls from Democratic presidential candidates; former Yale classmates claim he exposed himself to a woman at a college party.”

“I sat through those hearings. Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people,” Sen. Kamala Harris wrote on Twitter.

“He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice. He must be impeached.”

However, the Times was forced to correct the story on Monday after it was revealed that the “victim” of Kavanaugh’s alleged vulgar action at college refused to confirm the story.

On Monday evening, President Trump said during a rally in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, that the newspaper will “never recover” from its mistake regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh.

“They’ve taken the old grey lady and broken her down, destroyed her virtue, and ruined her reputation. She can never recover and will never return to greatness under current management,” the president commented.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra recently made the announcement that they are adding Iowa to their rapidly growing list of states on their “travel ban” simply because Iowa won’t force taxpayers to fund gender transition surgeries.

As of Oct. 4, California will no longer offer taxpayer-funded trips to Iowa for any public employee or student at a state-run university.

“California has taken an unambiguous stand against discrimination and government actions that would enable it,” Becerra said when announcing the Iowa ban.

Becerra’s authority came from a 2016 California law signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown that bars state-funded travel to other states that undercut LGBT rights. Iowa joins Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas on California’s banned list.

From the website of the California Office of the Attorney General:

“In AB 1887, the California Legislature determined that “California must take action to avoid supporting or financing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.” (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. (a)(5).) To that end, AB 1887 prohibits a state agency, department, board, or commission from requiring any state employees, officers, or members to travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that (1) has the effect of voiding or repealing existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; (2) authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; or (3) creates an exemption to anti-discrimination laws in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subds. (b)(1), (2).) In addition, the law prohibits California from approving a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to such a state.”

The law does allow some exceptions to the ban, including if it is required travel related to contracts signed before Jan. 1, 2017 or for the protection of public health, welfare or safety.

Conservatives have called the law ineffective, inconveniencing, possibly unconstitutional and hypocritical. The state’s sports teams have turned to private funding to get around the restrictions, according to The Los Angeles Times.

“The Iowa Legislature has reversed course on what was settled law under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, repealing protections for those seeking gender-affirming health care,” Becerra said in a statement.

The battle began after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in March that taxpayers could be forced to pay for gender reassignment surgery. Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law effectively overriding that ruling two months later.

“This narrow provision simply clarifies that Iowa’s Civil Rights Act does not require taxpayer dollars to pay for sex reassignment and other similar surgeries,” Reynolds spokesman Pat Garrett said in a statement at the time. “This returns us to what had been the state’s position for years.”

At the federal level, the Trump administration has rolled back the Obama-era determination that sex-based discrimination prohibitions under existing law include protections for gender identity.

The Health and Human Services Department, in May, angered progressive advocates with rules that both allowed doctors not to perform certain operations and stated that “gender identity” was not protected under sex discrimination law in health care.

“Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect,” said Roger Severino, who heads the HHS Office for Civil Rights. “We intend to fully enforce federal laws that prohibit discrimination.”

Asked about the charge that the administration has opened the door to discrimination against transgender people seeking needed medical care of any type, Severino responded, “I don’t want to see that happen.”

After allowing plenty of time for the lies to spread, the New York Times finally revised their story to include a key fact which they originally conveniently left out. The alleged ‘victim’ said she told them she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question whatsoever.

Of course, this comes after virtually every single Democrat jumped immediately to their favorite word, impeachment, citing that this inaccurate and uncorroborated article by the Times was reason enough to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, ironically Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, “saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

The Times neglected to mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

According to the Times, Stier “notified senators and the FBI about this account” last year during the Kavanaugh hearings, “but the FBI did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly.”

However, the Times’ article also conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly’s book found that the female student in question had denied any knowledge of the alleged episode.

“Omitting these facts from the @nytimes story is one of worst cases of journalistic malpractice that I can recall,” wrote the National Review’s Washington correspondent, John McCormack on Twitter.

McCormack wrote separately: “If Kavanaugh’s ‘friends pushed his penis,’ then isn’t it an allegation of wrongdoing against Kavanaugh’s ‘friends,’ not Kavanaugh himself? Surely even a modern liberal Yalie who’s been to one of those weird non-sexual ‘naked parties’ would recognize both the female student and Kavanaugh are both alleged victims in this alleged incident, barring an additional allegation that a college-aged Kavanaugh asked his ‘friends’ to ‘push his penis.'”

The Times went on to note in the article that it had “corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier,” but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.

Ramirez had called classmates at Yale seeking corroboration for her story, and even told some of her classmates that she could not remember the culprit in the alleged episode – prior to ultimately changing her mind and publicly blaming Kavanaugh “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney,” the New Yorker reported last year in a widely derided piece.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, then led by Chuck Grassley, wrote in an executive summary of its investigation that it contacted Ramirez’s counsel “seven times seeking evidence to support claims made in the New Yorker,” but that “Ms. Ramirez produced nothing in response and refused a Committee request for an interview.”

“@NYTimes did not contact Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would’ve reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted,” Grassley’s team wrote.

“Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez’ lawyers declined to provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement.”

Additionally, the FBI separately reached out to nearly a dozen individuals to corroborate the allegations by Ford and Ramirez, and ultimately spoke to ten individuals and two eyewitnesses, but apparently found no corroboration.

The president, meanwhile, accused the media of trying to influence Kavanaugh. He also went on to say that Kavanaugh should go on the offensive and take on the media for false statements.

“Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!” he tweeted.

Maybe the President is right. Democrats, like children throwing temper tantrums, have been consistently slandering not only Kavanaugh, but any Republican who stands in their way. It’s time they face legal action as their baseless attacks continue to rain in.

In a major win for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court issued an order late Wednesday ending all injunctions that had blocked the White House’s ban on asylum for anyone trying to enter the U.S. by traveling through a third country, such as Mexico, without seeking protection there.

The Supreme Court’s order was not a final ruling on the policy’s merits but does allow the policy to take effect nationwide, including in the 9th Circuit, while the case makes its way through the lower courts.

President Trump tweeted that the ruling was a “BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!”

The administration had argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that unless the injunctions were totally lifted everywhere, it “would severely disrupt the orderly administration of an already overburdened asylum system.”

The White House, however, said the lower court had overreached in an all-too-familiar manner.

“We are pleased the Supreme Court has ruled our Administration can implement important, needed fixes to the broken asylum system,” White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said.

“This greatly helps build on the progress we’ve made addressing the crisis at our southern border and will ultimately make American communities safer,” Gidley added.

“The district court’s erroneous nationwide injunction was another in a series of overreaching orders that allowed a single, non-elected district court judge to override policy decisions for the entire Nation. While there is much more work still to be done, thankfully the Supreme Court took a decisive step here and rejected the lower court’s egregious ruling.”

The DOJ also said the ruling would “bring order to the crisis at the southern border, close loopholes in our immigration system, and discourage frivolous claims.”

The Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco made it his mission to block the new policy from taking effect in late July.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it effectively applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy, citing new evidence.

In his ruling Monday, Tigar stressed a “need to maintain uniform immigration policy” and found that nonprofit organizations such as Al Otro Lado don’t know where asylum seekers who enter the U.S. will end up living and making their case to remain in the country.

President Trump weighed in on the ability of one judge to issue national injunctions. “I think it’s very unfair that he does that,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House for a trip to North Carolina. “I don’t think it should be allowed.”

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement that a sole judge shouldn’t have the ability to exert such a broad impact on immigration policy.

“This ruling is a gift to human smugglers and traffickers and undermines the rule of law,” she said.

U.S. law allows refugees to request asylum when they get to the U.S. regardless of how they arrive or cross. The crucial exception is for those who have come through a country considered to be “safe,” but the law is vague on how a country is determined to be safe. It says pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement.

People are generally eligible for asylum in the U.S. if they credibly fear return to their home country because they would be personally persecuted based on race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group.

The Trump administration has reason for optimism now that the case is back in the 9th Circuit. The San Francisco-based appellate court has seven Trump-appointed federal judges — more than any other federal appellate bench.

The radical transformation of the court, which has 29 seats, is largely the result of Trump’s push to nominate conservative judges and bypass traditional consultations with Senate Democrats.

Thanks to Trump’s strategical efforts to nominate more conservative judges, thirteen of the 29 seats are now occupied by GOP-appointed judges. Last year, that number stood at six.

“Thanks to Trump, the liberal 9th Circuit is no longer liberal,” The Washington Post noted earlier this year.

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!