Mark Meadows Draws Line in Sand: No DACA Amnesty in Spending Bill

by MATTHEW BOYLE2 Jan 2018Washington, DC

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/02/mark-meadows-draws-line-in-sand-no-daca-amnesty-in-spending-bill/

 

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, on Tuesday said there should be no Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty deal contained within the government funding bill coming up in January.

The important move by Meadows aims to take government shutdown leverage away from Democrats in the upcoming DACA battles — something that President Donald Trump alluded to on Tuesday morning on Twitter when he bashed Democrats for not being serious about DACA solutions.

 

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Democrats are doing nothing for DACA – just interested in politics. DACA activists and Hispanics will go hard against Dems, will start “falling in love” with Republicans and their President! We are about RESULTS.

10:16 AM – Jan 2, 2018

Meadows, in an interview with MSNBC host Chuck Todd, said that a DACA deal is in the works and being discussed.

“We have been working closely with the administration and some of my Democrat colleagues, even some Republicans that perhaps are more moderate than I would be, because the president set a deadline in March to deal with the 674,000 people that had deferred action,” Meadows said. “So, we’re going to get a deal. We have been working behind the scenes not only with members but with the White House as well to try to do that. But the president has been very specific on what he wants to see.”

Meadows noted that three “critically important” parts to any deal include the president’s planned wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, an end to chain migration, and a stop to the visa lottery — along with more general border and interior enforcement measures. Trump laid this out on Twitter last week.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!

8:16 AM – Dec 29, 2017

 

Meadows added that there is no way there can be any kind of “last minute scenario” whereby only amnesty for the DACA recipients happens without an end to chain migration, a stop to the visa lottery, and funding for the president’s planned border wall. The reason for that, he said, is that doing just an amnesty without stopping the flow of future illegal immigration will not solve the problem.

“If you deal with those 600,000 individuals without changing the fundamental reason why they are here and the fact that — we’ll just be dealing with it again,” Meadows said. “You have seen previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican, try to deal with it. And they have never been able to deal with it. Let’s go ahead, once and for all. Let’s do something historic and make sure we address it.”

But the most important thing Meadows said in the interview was that DACA should not be connected to the government funding bill. “How connected to the government funding bill is DACA now? This Jan. 19 expiration date, does DACA have to be agreed on before that? Is that your deadline?” Todd asked Meadows.

“Well, no, I think if you talk to Democrats, they are going to want to attach to it that funding,” Meadows replied. “Conservatives have said let’s keep as a separate issue. I’m hopeful that—“

“So you think March is the real deadline?” Todd pressed Meadows.

“March is the real deadline,” Meadows responded. “You are not even talking about any deportation until months after that even if we hit that deadline. But we are really looking at March. But the other part is I’m encouraging our leadership to go ahead and do something bold in the next two weeks. So let’s go ahead and have the debates and let’s discuss and it see if we can get a bipartisan agreement.”

Meadows added that he would like to see congressional leadership move forward on a plan that addresses President Trump’s concerns this month, in January.

“Yeah, in the House,” Meadows said when Todd asked about whether he wants to get moving in January. “Because the Senate is slower to act. So, yes, I see it being dealt with long before infrastructure.”

Reps. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan: It’s time for Jeff Sessions to go, as shown by the latest FBI leak

by Reps. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan | Jan 4, 2018, 9:00 AM

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reps-mark-meadows-and-jim-jordan-its-time-for-jeff-sessions-to-go-as-shown-by-the-latest-fbi-leak/article/2644934

As the first year of the Trump administration comes to a close, one can’t help but look back on how allegations of “Russian collusion” dominated the headlines of almost every news agency. Hearings, leaks, and so-called “bombshells” saturated the mainstream media coverage almost immediately after the 2016 presidential campaign concluded.

Sadly, manufactured hysteria on this issue throughout 2017 has frequently masked the substantial accomplishments of President Trump’s administration — some that qualify as historic. The stock market has surged at levels not seen in nearly a decade. The Islamic State has been decimated in the Middle East. Our embassy in Israel is moving to Jerusalem, Israel’s undivided capital. Trump delivered on the largest tax cuts and overhaul to the tax code since the Reagan administration. These are just a few examples.

Yet, in spite of the constant headlines, rampant speculation, and overshadowing of accomplishments, a simple truth remains: There is no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

And let’s be clear: The absence of evidence is not due to a lack of examination. There have been some six different investigations spent on the collusion narrative — more than the investigative efforts on former President Barack Obama’s IRS targeting of conservatives, the 30,000 missing Hillary Clinton emails, and Benghazi. And through all of that, there is zero (yes, zero) evidence of collusion.

Even with the complete dearth of evidence Congressional hearings have produced, the narrative machine continues to mobilize. Last week, the New York Times published an article using four current and former anonymous intelligence officials to suggest that George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign volunteer, was a “driving factor” who triggered the FBI’s spying on the Trump campaign. These anonymous sources claim that Papadopoulos, during a night of drinking at a bar in Europe, tipped off Australian diplomats about Russian collusion efforts, which ultimately led to the FBI opening an investigation.

Now, even if we put aside what should be an automatic mistrust of the motives behind anonymous intelligence officials sharing details about an ongoing investigation, there are two critical problems with the story. First, belief in this narrative at face value requires one to blatantly disregard a series of fundamental questions:

Question 1: If George Papadopoulos was central to the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign, why did the FBI wait more than 6 months to interview him in late January and again in February? And even if they were trying to keep the probe quiet during the 2016 election, why wait more than 2 months after Election Day?

Question 2: If Papadopoulos was so critical to the investigation, why did the FBI get a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant on Carter Page in the summer of 2016 but not on Papadopoulos, the alleged central player?

Question 3: If Papadopoulos was key to a collusion investigation and evidence existed supporting that claim, why would Bruce Ohr, the former DOJ official married to Fusion GPS’ investigator, meet with Christopher Steele, author of the so-called “Trump dossier” hired by the Clinton campaign, before and after the election?

Question 4: Why would former FBI Director James Comey brief President Obama and President-Elect Trump on the contents of the Russian dossier, but not do the same thing on this campaign staffer’s alleged collusion?

Question 5: Why won’t the FBI answer questions from Congress on this very topic? Why do they continue to refuse transparency on whether they paid Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier? We in Congress have asked them repeatedly to tell us what was in the application they took to the FISA Court to get a warrant for spying on the Trump campaign. Did they use the dossier in their application? This demands an answer.

Perhaps all of these questions have answers that could help bring this Russian collusion drama to a close. But it seems remarkably odd that instead of the FBI answering the critical questions that Congress has repeatedly asked, they instead leak a far-fetched and ill-supported story to the New York Times. If this is the truth, then give us the documentation we’ve asked for to prove it.

The second problem deals with a recurring issue that must be addressed immediately. The alarming number of FBI agents and DOJ officials sharing information with reporters is in clear violation of the investigative standards that Americans expect and should demand. How would New York Times reporters know any of this information when the FBI and DOJ are prohibited from talking about ongoing investigations? How many FBI agents and DOJ officials have illegally discussed aspects of an ongoing investigation with reporters? When will it stop?

It’s apparent that Comey has never had a problem sharing information with reporters, and he allowed his team to “follow the leader” in that regard—but it is time for this practice to come to an immediate end.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation, but it would appear he has no control at all of the premier law enforcement agency in the world. It is time for Sessions to start managing in a spirit of transparency to bring all of this improper behavior to light and stop further violations. If Sessions can’t address this issue immediately, then we have one final question needing an answer: When is it time for a new attorney general?

Sadly, it seems the answer is now.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., represents North Carolina’s 11th District in Congress. He is chair of the House Freedom Caucus. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, represents Ohio’s 4th District in Congress. He is a member of the House Freedom Caucus and served as its first chairman.

 

Jail Time for Too Much Meat on a Sandwich?

FreedomWorks – Or just way too many rules from a government that has way too many non-emulated agencies? Time and time again, the federal government has encroached into a sector of the economy and imposed a one-size-fits-all regulation that stifles competition, hurts small businesses, and creates troubling criminal penalties for lack of compliance. This is epitomized in federal involvement in menu labeling — regulations and requirements for private businesses to disclose caloric information on physical menus.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) is leading the charge on rolling back this overreach through the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act, H.R.772, to provide relief for convenience stores, restaurants, coffee shops, and pizza chains alike.

The factors at play here are multifaceted, but their effects are glaring. Beginning with the enactment of ObamaCare, retail food establishments with more than twenty locations of substantially similar menus were required to provide nutritional information, including caloric content, to its customers on their standard menu items.

Implementation of this measure fell to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has since struggled with rule-making to enact the law as intended. As a result, small businesses and large businesses alike have been detrimentally affected, as the attempt at an overarching federal regulation spreads its reach into every sector of the food preparation and sales industry.

Click here to read more.

Food for thought: Just think of all of the BILLIONS of dollars that our government could save us by cutting agencies and jobs, etc. of this kind of non-emulated or unconstitutional regulations, rules and laws?

NC Representative Larry G. Pittman Update

November 16, 2017
UPDATE ON INTERIM ACTIONS

It has been several weeks since I have given you an update.  Interesting things have happened so far during the interim, especially in our special sessions.

On October 5, the House passed HB 717 Judicial Redistricting & Investment Act with a vote of 69-43.  This bill addresses the need for correcting imbalances and lack of resources that have resulted from population increases and a general lack of attention to the efficiency of judicial districts across the State for about sixty years.  Rep. Justin Burr of Stanly County worked diligently on this bill, traveling all across the State to meet with judges and District Attorneys to learn their concerns and needs for a more efficient judicial system in the State.  His work should be appreciated.  Of local concern to my constituents, I worked with Rep. Burr to add one Superior Court Judge, one District Court Judge and two new Assistant District Attorneys to the Cabarrus district through this bill.  I really appreciate Rep. Burr’s willingness to hear from our judges and District Attorney Roxanne Vaneekhoven, as well as from us Legislators in the district, and to address our concerns as he has done.  I was glad and proud to support this bill.  Now, we are waiting for the Senate to act on it in the next special session, which will convene on January 10.

Under Republican leadership, we have been working for the last several years to reduce bureaucratic red tape on businesses in our State through regulatory reform.  SB 16 Business Regulatory Reform Act of 2017 was another step in that process.  It had passed the House 94-19, and Gov. Cooper had vetoed it.  The Senate and House both overrode the veto.  The vote in the House on Oct. 5 was 70-42.  I was one of the 70.

There has been an ongoing effort to free local governments from having to put certain public notices in newspapers and simply publish them through electronic media.  There is no consensus on this; so it has been difficult to do.  So a local bill for Guilford County, SB 181 Electronic Notice – Guildford County, was offered this year.  The House passed this bill by a close vote of 58-87 on October 5.  I voted for it.  It is now law in that county.  We’ll see how that goes and possibly move the effort forward elsewhere in the State later.

The Electoral Freedom Act of 2017, HB 656, was one with which I had some problems because I felt it lowered standards too much.  I did not vote for the bill originally.  The conference report made it even worse, in my estimation, by reducing the percentage required to avoid a primary runoff from 40% to 30%.  I vehemently disagree with this provision.  So I voted no on the conference report on Oct. 5. However, we were told that we will have an opportunity to correct this in the January special session, and a lot of my constituents wanted the original bill to be passed.  So on October 17, I voted to override the governor’s veto, and it was overridden in the House by a vote of 72-40.

In addition to these matters, I am serving as an Advisory Member on the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Education and the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Emergency Management.  There are some very serious matters for both of these committees to consider.  I’ll try to tell you more about that later, but there may be some things I cannot discuss.

The matter of Legislative Redistricting within the State is still a bit uncertain.  We are waiting on the courts to finish their rulings on the maps adopted by the Legislature.  I voted against these maps because they are unconstitutional.  Our State Constitution calls for us to redraw the maps after each census.  This year is four years early.  There are other objections being raised by the Democrats.  I particularly object to the changes made in Cabarrus and Rowan Counties because the lawsuit against the existing districts did not mention those.  Therefore, there was no justification for changing them.  It remains to be seen where all of this will end.  For now the court has ordered that a master map maker from California should redraw our maps.  I have heard that he has completed that redrawing, but I have not yet seen the result.  I’ll let you know more about this as the matter progresses.

For now, I wish you the Lord’s great blessings and a very Happy Thanksgiving.

God bless,

Rep. Larry G. Pittman, North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives, 1010 Legislative Building,

16 W. Jones Street, Raleigh, NC  27601-1096, 919-715-2009, larry.pittman@ncleg.net

Supreme Court to Consider California Law Forcing Pro-lifers to Promote Abortion

The New American – The Supreme Court announced Monday that it has agreed to hear a case challenging a California law requiring crisis-pregnancy centers, under the threat of heavy fines for noncompliance, to tell their clients how to obtain state-subsidized abortions.

The case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, charges that the Golden State’s Reproductive FACT Act violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and religion by forcing pregnancy centers to disseminate information that violates their religious beliefs.

The law passed the California legislature in 2015 on a party-line vote — Democrats yea, Republicans nay — and was signed by Governor Jerry Brown, also a Democrat. As The New American reported at the time, the act mandates that pregnancy centers offering medical services either post or distribute to their clients the following notice:

California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].

Click here to read more.

Rep. Meadows on ABC This Week

Washington, D.C. – On Sunday, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) appeared alongside Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. The two members discussed the new GOP tax reform proposal, which is going through the committee amendment process beginning today.

“It’s a work in progress,” Meadows said, but “preliminary numbers look very good in terms of economic growth. As I have looked at this particular bill, it appears that we should be able to get a 3.5 to 3.6 percent bump in GDP growth. When we do that, it means higher wages and a stronger economy.”

Meadows once again addressed the concern on increasing the deficit in the short run, reiterating that while he would prefer to cut both spending and taxes, the economic growth and relief for working families is worth the short-term exposure.

“Over a longer period of time, some 10 to 15 years, we believe that the economic growth will outweigh any short-term deficit increase that we see,” said Meadows, “so even though we’re looking at increasing the deficit in the short run, over a 15-year period, we could have these tax cuts paid for because of economic growth.”