Target: Bannon

The opposition media is desperate to take down Steve Bannon by any means necessary:

The issue of Bannon’s legal residency has been simmering since last summer, shortly after he became chief executive of Trump’s campaign. The Guardian reported in an Aug. 26 story that he was registered to vote at a then-vacant house and speculated that Bannon may have signed an oath that he was a Florida resident to take advantage of the state’s lack of state income taxes.

In California, where Bannon had lived and owned property for more than two decades, income tax can exceed 12 percent.

Bannon has not responded to repeated requests by The Washington Post to discuss the matter. Two Post reporters sought to independently verify his residency claims, using a wide array of publicly available information.

They obtained utility bills, court records, real estate transactions, state driver reports and the checks he wrote to pay municipal taxes in California. They interviewed neighbors, spoke with landlords and tracked his Breitbart-related activity.

In the digital age, when most Americans leave a clear footprint of their whereabouts, Bannon left a meandering trail filled with ambiguity, contradictions and questions. The Post found that Bannon left a negligible footprint in Florida. He did not get a Florida driver’s license or register a car in the state. He never voted in Florida, and neighbors near two homes he leased in Miami said they never saw him. His rent and utility bills were sent to his business manager in California.

Bannon’s former wife occupied the premises, according to a landlord and neighbors.

At the same time Bannon said he was living with his ex-wife, she was under investigation for involvement in a plot to smuggle drugs and a cellphone into a Miami jail, a law enforcement document obtained by The Post shows.

The Post learned that state prosecutors in Miami have an active investigation into Bannon’s assertions that he was a Florida resident and qualified to vote in the state from 2014 to 2016. In late August, investigators subpoenaed Bannon’s lease of a Coconut Grove home and other documents. They also contacted the landlords of that home and another that Bannon leased nearby, and sought information from a gardener and handyman who worked at one of the homes, according to documents and interviews.

Because state laws do not clearly define residency, making a false registration case can be difficult.

The danger, as I can personally testify, is that some state agents are willing to lie, ignore conclusive evidence, and make blatantly false residence claims. The Minnesota Department of Revenue eventually gave up and settled its absurd case against my father, two years after illegally seizing his house there for “unpaid taxes”, because it relied upon an agent pretending that two flights, one back to Florida and another one up to Minnesota, had not taken place even though my father provided the electronic and paper evidence that he had been on them. Erasing those flights added several nonexistent weeks to his time in Minnesota, just enough to permit them to make a false claim of his residence there and claim that he owed taxes that he manifestly did not.

Agencies love the nebulous “footprint” standard, which they prefer to the hard and fast residency laws that clearly enumerate the number of days one has to be physically present in a state in order to be a resident there. Some dirt, you see, is so magic that it sticks to you wherever you go.

In my father’s case, the entire family knew the MDR claim to be false, because we had all been with him at his house in Naples at one point or another during the time he was supposedly in Minnesota. But the agent ignored literally all the evidence, documentary and testimonial, in order to lay the foundation for a false residence claim. He’s dead now. Karma can be a bitch.

Anyhow, this would be an excellent time for the God-Emperor to return the favor and order investigations into the personal lives of the Post reporters who are so determined to dig up dirt on Bannon.


US Attorney refuses to resign

This would appear to be a breach of standard protocol. One assumes he has a good reason for doing so:

Preet Bharara, a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, is refusing the Trump administration’s demand to resign, according to multiple reports Saturday.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Friday asked 46 attorneys appointed by former President Obama to submit their resignations, including Bharara.

“HOLDOVER: Bharara is not submitting his resignation, according to several ppl briefed – WH not responding to what they’ll do next,” the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman tweeted Saturday.

CNN’s Jake Tapper also reported that Bharara was refusing to resign.

I have no idea what would possess the man to take this stand now. Is he trying to stop an investigation? Is he trying to protect an investigation? There is simply not enough information to have an opinion at this time, especially given all of the darker rumors floating around.


The Grand Inquisitor cleans house

Attorney General Sessions asks all remaining Obama-appointed prosecutors to resign:

In a move that will likely provoke further media, and pundit, fury despite it being a routine act that is concurrent with every change in administration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has asked all remaining Obama-appointed U.S. Attorneys for their resignation.

Sarah Isgur Flores, Director of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice, released the following statement:

“As was the case in prior transitions, many of the United States Attorneys nominated by the previous administration already have left the Department of Justice. The Attorney General has now asked the remaining 46 presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys to tender their resignations in order to ensure a uniform transition. Until the new U.S. Attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our U.S. Attorney’s Offices will continue the great work of the Department in investigating, prosecuting, and deterring the most violent offenders.”

Trump had previously asked the Obama-appointed U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara, to stay on. In addition, the Obama-appointed U.S. attorney in Alexandria, Virginia, Dana Boente, is currently serving as acting deputy attorney general, and Trump has nominated the Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney for Maryland, Rod Rosenstein, for the deputy attorney general, Politico adds.

However, as NBC adds, Preet Bharara is one of the Attorneys asked to resigns, suggesting that something may have changed in the amicable realtionship between Trump and Bharara in the past few months.

The issue of removing U.S. attorneys at the change of administration has been a contentious one in past years. According to Politico, in 2007, President George W. Bush’s administration sought to defend his firing of eight U.S. attorneys by asserting that President Bill Clinton had fired all sitting U.S. attorneys in 1993 “in one fell swoop,” as a top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales put it. However, that was not true. In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, the vast majority of U.S. attorneys were replaced in the first year, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2007. The Clinton team asked for resignation letters in March, but also allowed many prosecutors to stay until their successors were confirmed.

Now we appear to be getting somewhere. Still not tired.


H1B: the real cost-benefit

Why the H1B visa program should be shut down without delay:

A close look at H1BPays.com’s data shows that, as you move past the Googles and Microsofts of the IT world, H-1B salaries tend to cluster around the $65,000 to $75,000 level.  There is a reason for this.  If outsourcing companies pay their H-1B workers at least $60,000, the company is exempted from a number of regulations designed to prevent visa abuse.

But $60,000 is far below 2016 market rates for most tech jobs.

In 2014 (the last year we have good data), Infosys, Cognizant, Wipro, and Tata Consultancy used 21,695 visas, or more than 25 percent of all private-sector H-1B visas used that year. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Uber, for comparison, used only 1,763 visas, or 2 percent.

What’s the difference? Infosys, Cognizant, Wipro, and Tata are all outsourcing companies. Their business model involves using H-1B visas to bring low-cost workers into the United States and then renting those workers to other companies. Their competitive advantage is price. That is, they make their money by renting their workers for less than companies would have to pay American workers.

 This is the real story of the H-1B visa. It is a tool used by companies to avoid hiring American workers, and avoid paying American wages. For every visa used by Google to hire a talented non-American for $126,000, ten Americans are replaced by outsourcing companies paying their H-1B workers $65,000.

That’s how you kill high tech in America. It’s time for the God-Emperor to shut the program down entirely. There is ABSOLUTELY zero need for it. Let Microsoft and Google move to India if they think they can get better coders there.


No charges for BasedStickman

This is good news. The lesson here is that even in left-liberal strongholds, where the authorities are SJW-amenable, it is both legal and prudent to prepare oneself for violent confrontation with antifa and Black Bloc. As long as your preparations are primarily defensive, and your actions are in response to the Left’s violence, there is a reasonable chance that the authorities will refrain from doing more than attempting to put a brief scare into you. So hit back twice as hard.

Their reasoning is pretty simple, I suspect. If people cannot defend themselves with open, obvious, and limited means, they are going to start defending themselves with concealable and lethal means, and if they are prevented from doing that, there is a very good chance they will start engaging in reprisals that are considerably less easy to witness or prevent.

US society is observably on the decline towards primitive and tribal standards. One common aspect of primitive societies is ritual limited violence. This would appear to be a natural step towards that, in line with tattooing and body-decorating.


Towergate

There is a very good case to be made that Obama and/or someone on his team is now in serious legal jeopardy as a result of the reported wire-tappings of Trump Tower:

If the stories are correct, Obama or his officials might even face prosecution. But, we are still early in all of this and there are a lot of rumors flying around so the key is if the reports are accurate. We just don’t know at this time. The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are than Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.

Read the rest of it there. Robert Barnes goes into some detail concerning the legal minutia of the laws related to FISA and how the Obama administration almost certainly misbehaved if it even attempted to get a FISA warrant to spy on a presidential candidate.

I discussed some aspects of this at last night’s Darkstream. And as I stated, the Trump administration is already on top of it: “A senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what the official described as a document issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing surveillance of Mr. Trump and his associates.” 

It seems pretty clear now that a FISA warrant was secured and the subsequent wire-tapping took place. Reporter Cathy Aureu stated on Fox News that a female source, who worked in the Obama administration for nearly the whole of his two terms, confirmed that a FISA warrant was secured. However, she does not know who was responsible for securing it.


Getting the state out of marriage

Alabama takes the lead:

An Alabama bill that would abolish marriage licenses in the state, and effectively nullify in practice both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage, unanimously passed an important Senate committee last week.

Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette) filed Senate Bill 20 (SB20) earlier this month. The legislation would abolish all requirements to obtain a marriage license in Alabama. Instead, probate judges would simply record civil contracts of marriage between two individuals based on signed affidavits.

“All requirements to obtain a marriage license by the State of Alabama are hereby abolished and repealed. The requirement of a ceremony of marriage to solemnized the marriage is abolished.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB20 9-0 on Feb. 23.

The proposed law would maintain a few state requirements governing marriage. Minors between the ages of 16 and 18 would have to obtain parental permission before marrying, the state would not record a marriage if either party was already married, and the parties could not be related by blood or adoption as already stipulated in state law.

Civil or religious ceremonies would have no legal effect upon the validity of the marriage. The state would only recognize the legal contract signed by the two parties entering into the marriage.

This is an excellent policy, and one which I have advocated since my WND days. The state does not define marriage. The state cannot define marriage. The state has never defined marriage; it is an institution that long precedes the state.

The state has the right to create whatever legal contractual relationships between whatever parties it likes, but those relationships are not marriage. The Alabama bill would clarify that, and would have the benefit of removing those whose marriages are religious in nature from the predations of the state’s divorce courts.

If conservatives want to save marriage, then this is a policy they should take to the national level.


Black Bloc cries

Antifa isn’t so tough when the authorities aren’t amenable and they have to actually face the consequences of their criminal actions:

A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday indicted more than 200 people arrested during the presidential inauguration on felony rioting charges, spotlighting their intent to sabotage peaceful protests with violence and destruction.

Called out for individual acts of vandalism, violence and destruction, prosecutors alleged Tuesday that 214 protesters engaged in “black bloc” tactics on Jan. 20 during President Donald Trump’s swearing-in, causing damage to vehicles and property. Six police officers were also hurt during the riots as they exchanged flash-bang explosives with protesters hurling rocks and firecrackers at them.

D.C. police have stressed that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful, but that these 214 people — the other 17 people arrested during the inauguration were released from custody — showed up specifically to disrupt the event.

“Black bloc” protest tactics, which have been used by some protesters for decades, include dressing in black or dark colored clothing while concealing one’s face using scarves, masks and sunglasses. Some of the protesters brought with them hammers, crowbars, bricks, rocks, flares and firecrackers.

The funny thing is that they’re crying about how even though their “backers” bailed them out, they’re still facing stiff fines and up to 10 years in prison. The idiots never learn that they’re just expendable tools, doomed to be cast aside as soon as they’re not useful anymore.


Trump administration to bypass courts

Now that multiple US courts have revealed themselves to be less interested in the law than testing their powers against the executive branch, the God-Emperor is simply routing around them:

ON TUESDAY, THE Department of Homeland Security released a pair of memos laying out how the agency intends to implement President Donald Trump’s executive orders on domestic immigration enforcement. In addition to calling for a massive increase in the number of immigration agents and the deputizing of local and state law enforcement across the country — described in the documents as a “force multiplier”— the memos dramatically expand the range of people who can be deported without seeing a judge.

“I see now what the plan is,” Greg Siskind, a Tennessee-based immigration attorney and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association board of governors, told The Intercept. “Their plan is basically to have everybody thrown out of the country without ever going to court.” Additional immigration attorneys and legal experts who spoke to The Intercept shared Siskind’s concerns, describing various elements of the DHS directives and the executive orders they reflect as “horrifying,” “stunning,” and “inhumane.”

“This is the broadest, most widespread change I have seen in doing this work for more than two decades,” Lee Gelernt, a veteran immigration attorney and deputy director of the ACLU’s national Immigrants’ Rights Project, told The Intercept. “After 9/11 we saw some extreme policies, but they were largely confined to particular areas around the relationship between immigration and national security. Here what we’re seeing are those types of policies but also much broader policies just dealing with immigration generally.”

“I expected bad based on Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric,” added David Leopold, a Cleveland-based immigration attorney and past president of AILA. “Then when I read the executive order, I expected really bad … but I’m absolutely shocked at the mean-spiritedness of this.”

We’ll see how it works out in practice, but if the plan has these anti-American lawyers this upset, it looks to be a pretty good start. The pre-1965 demographic balance isn’t going to be restored overnight, and 80 million foreign residents aren’t going to be repatriated by the end of this year, but the journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step.

Let the Soros-funded lawyers file their complaints with the amenable courts after Pedro and Wang-Meng are returned home to Guatemala and Vietnam. We’ll see how long their altruism lasts when there are real costs of time, money, and opportunity associated with it. It appears that portrait of Andrew Jackson hung in the White House after the inauguration was exactly what we suspected; it was provided as fair warning.

Of course, this plan isn’t mean-spirited at all. This is kindness. Mean-spirited is what is going to come if these necessary efforts to make the USA American again are somehow stymied. And it will only get worse, considerably worse, from there. Because the God-Emperor is not going to let America or Western civilization die under the feet of tens of millions of unnecessary and unwanted invaders.

It’s time to go home.

“America is not only for the whites, but it is for all. Who is the American? The American is you, me and that. When we go to America we will become Americans and there is no a race or nationalism called America and the Americans are those Africans, Indians, Chinese, and Europeans and whoever goes to America will become American…American is for all of us and the whole world had made and created America. All the people all over the world had made America and it shall accordingly be for all of us. I will never feel ashamed when I claim for my right in America and it will not be strange when I raise my voice in America.”
– Col. Moammar Gadhafi, 12 January 2005

Obviously Moammar was an American born in Libya, more American than any descendant of the Pilgrims who doesn’t believe that America is a Judeo-Christian Proposition Melting Pot of Immigrants.


Why did the FBI investigate?

Andrew McCarthy of National Review observes that there appears to have been no basis for a criminal or intelligence probe of General Flynn:

Why would Flynn be the subject of an investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department?

We are told that the FBI was monitoring the phone calls of Russian ambassador Kislyak under FISA. Makes sense — he’s an overt foreign agent from a hostile government. Flynn called Kislyak on December 29, 2016. It was not a nefarious communication: Flynn was a top adviser of then-president-elect Trump, a part of the Trump transition team, and just three weeks from formally becoming the new president’s national-security adviser. His communications with Kislyak were just some of the many conversations Flynn was having with foreign officials.

No doubt the calls of other American officials who have perfectly valid reasons to call Russian diplomats have been intercepted. It is the FBI’s scrupulous practice to keep the identities of such interceptees confidential. So why single Flynn out for identification, and for investigation?

FBI agents did not need to “grill” Flynn in order to learn about the call — they had a recording of the call. They also knew there was nothing untoward about the call. We know that from the Times report — a report that suggests an unseemly conjoining of investigative power to partisan politics. The report informs us that as the FBI set its sights on Flynn, its agents were consulting with “Obama advisers.”

Interesting, no? Ever since Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on November 8, Obama’s Democratic party had been pushing a narrative that “Putin hacked the election.” The narrative continues to have two major flaws.

First, while the Russian dictator may have preferred Trump to Clinton, there is no evidence that his Russian regime did anything to compromise the voting process. The media-Democrat complex has desperately sought to obscure this problem by emphasizing Putin’s likely role in publicizing embarrassing Democratic e-mail communications. Notwithstanding Democratic talking points, that is a far cry from “hacking” the voting process.

The second flaw is that, although Trump has made disturbingly flattering remarks about Putin, there is no evidence his campaign has given or promised Russia any actual accommodation in exchange for Putin’s favor. Democrats hope to erase this problem by finding something, anything, that could be spun as a quid pro quo. Obviously, they hoped the Flynn–Kislyak conversation would answer their prayers. No such luck. As the Times puts it: Obama officials asked the FBI if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal. Asked not to be named discussing delicate communications.

That’s a good one. Let me translate: The officials don’t want you to know who they are because they are corrupt — (a) FISA intercepts are classified, so disclosing them to the press is a crime; (b) by revealing the Flynn–Kislyak conversation to the press, the “officials” inform the Russians that whatever countermeasures they are taking against U.S. surveillance have failed, assuring that the Russians will alter their tactics, making the job of our honorable intelligence agents more difficult; and (c) the FBI’s investigative powers are not supposed to be put in in the service of a political party’s effort to advance a partisan storyline, like “Putin hacked the election.”

So since there was no impropriety in Flynn’s call to the Russian ambassador, why did the Bureau continue investigating Flynn? Why did FBI agents interrogate him?

Curiouser and curiouser. Perhaps the Zerohedge insider is correct and the God-Emperor is simply using Flynn to smoke out the Deep State opposition. We’ll know that was the case if he eventually brings Flynn back into the administration in some capacity. It seems unlikely, but these are improbable times.