|
|
IRLI shows new state immigration law was contemplated by Congress |
WASHINGTON—The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a brief in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals defending Iowa's new immigration law, which has been the target of lawsuits brought by the Biden Administration and anti-borders activists.
Following the example of Texas, which in response to the border crisis passed a sweeping immigration law, Iowa recently passed a law that makes illegal reentry into the United States a state crime. Under the law, aliens found guilty of that crime may avoid jail time by agreeing to be taken out of the country by Iowa officials. The federal government, joined by anti-borders activist groups, claims the law is preempted by federal immigration law.
In its brief, IRLI makes a unique argument, showing that the law, far from being preempted, is actually contemplated by the federal government's own criminal reentry statute, which makes it a federal crime to reenter the country after having been removed—including having been removed by agreeing to removal in a state court.
"These are two more meritless lawsuits by an administration and its allies trying desperately to stop states from doing anything about a problem Biden steadfastly refuses to solve," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "Far from being inconsistent with this state law, federal immigration law explicitly gives effect to state removal laws such as this. We hope our brief, by bringing this feature of federal immigration law to the court's attention, convinces the court to uphold Iowa's effort to defend itself."
The cases are Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird, No. 24-2263, and United States v. Iowa, No. 24-2265 (Eighth Circuit). |
Secrets Revealed
A courageous whistleblower inside the Secret Service has come forward to expose some of the secrets the agency has been hiding.
The whistleblower informed Senator Josh Hawley that Ronald Rowe, the current acting director who replaced Kimberly Cheatle, is responsible for significantly cutting back the Counter Surveillance Division (CSD).
CSD agents perform threat assessments before events. But the whistleblower alleges that CSD agents did not perform a threat assessment prior to the Butler rally and were not present on the day of the rally.
In a letter sent to Rowe yesterday, Hawley wrote:
"This is significant because CSD's duties include evaluating potential security threats outside the security perimeter and mitigating those threats during the event. . . if personnel from CSD had been present at the rally, the gunman would have been handcuffed in the parking lot after being spotted with a rangefinder."
The whistleblower also told Hawley that multiple Secret Service agents have complained about inadequate security for President Trump for nearly a year, saying that Rowe's cutbacks were jeopardizing the people they were supposed to protect. The whistleblower alleges that Rowe retaliated against the agents who voiced their concerns.
If true, any retaliation could well be a violation of federal law. Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected from retaliation in order to encourage people to come forward and report problems or any kind of wrongdoing.
This new information raises even more questions. Did the Secret Service continue conducting normal site investigations for Joe Biden? Or were the CSD cutbacks limited to just Trump events?
Just as a reminder: In recent years, several rising political stars who have resisted globalism have faced assassination attempts. (Here, here, and here.) Is it just a coincidence that populist leaders seem to be most frequently targeted? It certainly seems odd to me.
There is a worldwide struggle raging against free societies led by radical Islamists, neo-Marxists, and the one world government crowd. We are watching the death of Western Civilization in France and Great Britain. Or the real possibility that both countries could devolve into civil wars.
DOUBLE VICTORIES FOR OUR COMMUNITY!! Two of our bills are now law, thanks to local teamwork and the Governor's signature! |
 |
| |
| Despite being in the minority, we succeeded in passing two bills this Session, and on Tuesday, shareholders and I met Governor Youngkin for his signature. HB 1217 enables law enforcement to be more effective and act with greater speed in missing persons cases with suspicious activity. CLICK HERE to watch yesterday's ABC 13 News coverage on the new law. When foul play is an evident contributing factor, this law will remove red tape that would have impeded swift progress. Courts may now grant law enforcement access to case-specific cellular data for locating missing persons more quickly. I am proud to be pictured here with Governor Youngkin and Campbell County Sheriff's Office stakeholders, Captain Herndon and Investigator L.T. Guthrie. |
 |
| |
|
HB 1278 promotes medical freedom, enabling more patients to benefit from a particular, proven acupuncture treatment. Previously, this treatment protocol was over-regulated, thereby limiting access and driving costs upward. Joining Gov. Youngkin and me were Sheila Keenum and Kate Clifton, both of whom professionally answered committee questions during vigorous hearings in Richmond while this bill made it's way from concept to statute. |
| Governor's Office Celebrates 10,000+ Start-Ups in Virginia! |
We want to congratulate and celebrate with Governor Youngkin and his Office as his goal of creating 10,000 new entrepreneurial jobs in Virginia has not only been achieved but also surpassed. Yesterday, the Governor's Office officially announced that since the goal was set on Dec 31 2023, 10,337 new high wage, high growth start ups are up and running in the Commonwealth. This news is a stellar compliment and highlight to the recent CNBC poll that named Virginia No. 1 state in the Nation to do business. In a time of economic uncertainty we are grateful for and supportive of Governor Youngkin who works hard to give our state every advantage to compete and thrive in the business markets, local and global. |
|
There are too many questions the Secret Service has not answered because there is no answer that does not "convict" them. For example:
WG Economy: Will Harris Be Able to Escape Inflation?WG Economy | David WinstonJuly 31, 2024The Associated Press reported that new Democratic nominee Kamala Harris "freshens up" her economic message on equity and fairness and incorporating progressive themes like price gouging. The article pointed out that "Not once in speeches in Wisconsin, Indiana or Texas did she mention the word "inflation" - the overwhelming economic challenge that has dogged Biden's administration." It went on to say that "there is an expectation that criticism on inflation will not stick to her because for many voters she represents a fresh voice..." Democrats will try to avoid the issue of inflation unless Republicans allow them to do so and choose to focus on other topics. To the frustration of the Biden administration, voters still believe inflation is getting worse (51%) rather than better (21%) or not changing (26%). The year-over-year rate has moderated since its peak in 2022, but the cumulative rate of inflation since the start of the Biden presidency is 20.1%. That means this same level of price increase happened on her watch too. |
FAIR Uncovers Internal DHS Report Indicating that the Illegal Biden-Harris
Cuba-Haiti-Nicaragua-Venezuela Parole Program is Riddled with Fraud
(August 2, 2024, Washington, D.C.) Internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents obtained by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reveal that the department has been rubber stamping parole applications without verifying information provided by sponsors or parolees. The explosive new report has allegedly led to the quiet pause on the CHNV program
An internal department investigation shows that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reviewed thousands of applications for the CHNV parole program "to identify patterns, trends, and potential fraud indicators." The internal report, obtained by FAIR, suggests massive fraud in the application process, and specifically, fraudulent information used in thousands of Form I-134A, the paperwork a sponsor files with USCIS for each alien seeking parole through the CHNV program. Nearly a half a million people were allowed to enter the country between October 2022 and March 2024 under the CHNV program
The internal review found evidence of fraud that includes the use of fake Social Security Numbers (SSNs), including SSNs of deceased individuals, and the use of false phone numbers. Many applications listed the same physical address. Some 100 addresses were listed on over 19,000 forms, and many parole applicants applied from a single property (including a mobile park home, warehouse, and storage unit). In addition, many applications were submitted by the same IP address. If this weren't bad enough, the same exact answers to Form I-134A questions were provided on hundreds of applications – in some instances, the same answer was used by over 10,000 applicants.
"This damning internal report further confirms that the sole focus of the Biden-Harris administration, when it comes to illegal immigration, is getting as many people into the country as they can, by any means necessary, and at the risk of national security" charged Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "The CHNV program was established without congressional authorization and in violation of statutory requirements that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis for explicit national interest or humanitarian purposes.
"Not only has the administration made a mockery of the law, DHS's internal investigation proves that USCIS ignored blatant fraud and confirmed applications despite fictitious information," continued Stein. "The obvious questions that must be asked now are who gave the orders to ignore fraud? Has the agency taken steps to stop it? And what, if anything, is DHS doing to track down and potentially revoke parole for the many thousands of people granted entry after filing fraudulent applications?
"It is also imperative that Congress take immediate action to shut down the illegal and fraud-ridden CHNV program that the Biden-Harris administration has been using to mask the full scope of the illegal immigration crisis created by their policies," Stein concluded.
FAIR's summary of the findings of the DHS internal report can be found here.
WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Byron Donalds (R-FL) announced a two-part legislative initiative to invalidate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) new interpretive guidance on Buy Now Pay Later Loans (BNPLs).
The August legislative push includes a House Joint Resolution, and a letter directed to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra.
With today's announcement, Congressman Donalds has now introduced one-hundred pieces of legislation during the 118th Congress, including a fifteen-part financial services legislative package. Congressman Donalds released the following statement:
"Buy Now, Pay Later is an easily accessible, inexpensive, and flexible form of financing that increases the purchasing power of consumers and boosts sales for retailers. The CFPB's routine of overregulating new and emerging industries for political purposes will only set us back as a country and will continue to drive entrepreneurs offshore to more favorable nations. This is why I introduced legislation to rescind the CFPB's latest effort to regulate Buy Now, Pay Later digital user accounts as traditional credit cards and ensure financial technology products are not mischaracterized. Government must put the American people first and Congress must rein-in out-of-control bureaucracy. I am proud to offer this commonsense initiative, to comprehensively review, and facilitate debate on this impactful new CFPB policy."
See full text of the letter HERE or below:
The Honorable Rohit Chopra
Director
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
100 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20552
Dear Director Chopra:
We write regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) May 2024 Interpretive Rule, which applies certain provisions under Regulation Z to the use of digital user accounts to access buy now, pay later (BNPL) products. If the CFPB intends to take the expansionary interpretation of Regulation Z, as the Interpretive Rule proposes, American consumers are at risk of losing access to low-cost, innovative financial products that currently offer convenient alternative financing methods. We strongly urge the CFPB to extend the comment period, extend the effective date, and consider several changes to account for the unique business model of, and consumer interaction with, BNPL products.
Benefit to Consumers
Recent years have illustrated an increasing consumer demand for BNPL products. These products often allow customers to obtain financing (typically between $50 to $1000 dollars) at the time of purchase, which is then typically repaid in four – or fewer – interest-free installments with no finance charge. The first payment is typically 25% of the value, followed by three subsequent payments of 25% each, usually two weeks apart.
Typically, at the time of purchase, consumers are presented with the option to pay with traditional debit or credit cards or a BNPL product. Retailers often partner with a BNPL provider that offers consumers a "digital user account" to access their respective BNPL products. Most BNPL providers also have online or mobile applications that allow consumers to shop for retail products and access BNPL products during this process. Regardless of the method, when a customer creates an account, they are not applying for an open-end line of credit. Rather, the approval or denial and relevant disclosures for any offering occurs at the time of each individual purchase, typically resulting in a closed-end loan for each transaction, if approved.
The CFPB should not mischaracterize or impair BNPL product offerings that are responsible alternatives to open-end lines of credit. Consumers rely on BNPL products to distribute their spending over a finite period, allowing them to manage their finances with more flexibility. Such financing offers a convenient transactional experience, benefiting both consumers and small businesses.
Unfortunately, the Interpretive Rule threatens the availability of innovative and pro-consumer BNPL products. Rather than mischaracterize BNPL digital user accounts used to access BNPL products by equating them to "credit cards" in accordance with the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z the CFPB should adopt tailored, common-sense rules and guidance to ensure consumers are protected while still being able to reap the benefits of these products.
Common Sense and Practical Disclosure
Digital user accounts used to access BNPL products should not be inappropriately forced into an open-ended credit disclosure framework under Regulation Z. The CFPB's Interpretive Rule performs regulatory jiu-jitsu as a method of capturing traditional BNPL products. The CFPB should account for BNPL products' structural differences as it strives to maintain consumer protections.
Standardized disclosures for BNPL products benefit customers. While this Interpretive Rule claims to achieve this, it effectively creates a regime incompatible with BNPL products, potentially confusing customers. For instance, many BNPL products have two-week periods between statements, which conflicts with Reg Z's requirement for a statement to be issued 21 days before a payment is due. It is unclear if the CFPB intends to alter the timing structure of BNPL products; thus, such products should be exempted from this requirement.
Furthermore, some customers have multiple BNPL products. Complying with this Interpretive Rule would result in customers receiving multiple statements that do not reflect the payment cycle of the consumer. This will lead to greater customer confusion. Currently, there is a less than 3% delinquency rate among BNPL users, which indicates the consumer understands the terms and conditions and their obligations. Creating a disclosure statement without relevance to the product will be counterproductive. The CFPB should consider how this information could be presented to customers in a clear and concise manner and take into account the tools BNPL providers already provide consumers to manage their BNPL products. As currently written, the Interpretive Rule would result in a haphazard disclosure regime.
There are significant differences between receiving a credit card and opening an account with a BNPL provider. For instance, opening a BNPL "digital user account" does not imply approval for a BNPL product. Each loan is approved on an individual basis, and disclosures are provided at the point of purchase. The CFPB should not require disclosure of all potential finance charges upon opening an account with a BNPL provider; instead, this disclosure should occur when a consumer initiates a BNPL product for each purchase.
The CFPB's argument that a "digital user account" is a credit card is fundamentally flawed and contradictory of prior CFPB findings. A credit card does not include, for example, an account number that accesses a credit account unless it accesses an open-ended line of credit or a hybrid pre-paid card. The CFPB's definition of "digital user account" seems to capture more than just the BNPL products contemplated in the rulemaking. The CFPB should ensure no other products are captured in this definition. Furthermore, by shoehorning digital user accounts and BNPL providers into Subpart B of Regulation Z, which places requirements on open-ended credit products, it is unclear which aspects of Subpart B apply to BNPL products which are closed-ended.
As drafted, this Interpretive Rule does not achieve its intended goal: protecting consumers. Given the ambiguity and confusion in requirements, it will create a number of varied approaches to disclosures, billing, and potentially disputes which will only cause confusion for consumers.
Need for More Information Prior to Implementation
The CFPB's approach of regulating through guidance first and subsequently requesting comments later is not the appropriate way to implement major policy decisions. Furthermore, the 60-day compliance timeline is far too short for BNPL providers to implement the compliance processes required by this Interpretive Rule, and it contravenes TILA's applicable effective date requirement. Lastly, the CFPB adds confusion by not clarifying the status of BNPL products offered during the 60-day period before the rule takes effect.
The CFPB should rescind this Interpretive Rule and start anew to provide consistent, common sense, and consumer-friendly disclosures. Given that the Interpretive Rule seeks to impose new obligations, requiring that BNPL providers comply with Regulation Z requirements, including provisions relating to disclosure, the CFPB should at least modify the implementation deadline to October 1, 2025, as opposed to July 30, 2024.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
MORE:
President Biden ended his reelection campaign on Sunday, July 21, under mounting pressure from Democrats following his poorly received debate performance. By endorsing Harris, he has positioned her as the frontrunner to succeed him. However, there is still some degree of uncertainty looming as Democrats hurriedly work to assemble a new 2024 ticket before the party's convention on August 19-22 in Chicago.
Harris' stance on energy, both during her tenure as a senator and as a candidate in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, was to the left of Biden's, leaning more towards far-left positions that favor government control and political direction of energy production. In her 2019 platform, she outlined climate goals that surpassed those of the current administration, aiming to achieve a renewable reliant economy by 2045. Her plan proposed that new buses, heavy-duty vehicles, and vehicle fleets must be zero-emission by 2030, with all vehicles mandated to be 100 percent zero-emission by 2035.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's Friday, August 2, 2024. This week the president of the United States threatened to murder a political rival while his chosen successor considers whether a Jewish running mate would alienate the party's base. Meanwhile, a bunch of washed up celebrities and mentally deranged internet users organized a series of "whites only" fundraising calls to support the party ticket.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats!
When Joe Biden, who is nominally still the president, introduced a blatantly unconstitutional plan to radically transform the Supreme Court, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) called it "dead on arrival." Biden, who is significantly older than 12, responded by calling Johnson "dead on arrival." Good one!
Remember three weeks ago when former president Donald Trump was almost assassinated? The mainstream media briefly pretended to care about the use of "violent rhetoric" to attack political opponents. Biden was still alive back then and running for reelection. He gave a speech urging Americans to "lower the temperature in our politics." Feels like three years ago.
Kamala Harris is running for president now. Journalists and other liberals are over the moon. Harris supporters are so excited they decided to bring back racial and gender segregation. "White Women for Kamala" and "White Dudes for Harris" were two of the largest (and most annoying) Zoom calls in history, involving hundreds of thousands of sad liberals flagellating themselves.
"We are here because BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, People of Color] women have tapped us in to stand up and get involved this election season," said the obnoxious white female TikTok personality Arielle Fodor. "As White women, we need to use our privilege to make positive changes. If you find yourself talking over or speaking for BIPOC individuals or, God forbid, correcting them, just take a beat, and instead we can put our listening ears on." |
Immigration-driven population growth forces the U.S. to meet its consumption demand by taking resources from future generations (drawing down domestic resources), and from other countries (importing resources; exporting waste). This is what the scientific community calls "overshoot." We cannot sustain this level of immigration.
August 1st marks the date when humanity's demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. The United States hit its Overshoot Day this year on March 14.
Claims knowingly crashing the border violates Constitution and environmental law |
WASHINGTON—Today, on behalf of Texas rancher and veterinarian Michael ("Doc") Vickers, Kinney County, Texas, Kinney County Sheriff Brad Coe, and Atascosa County, Texas, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) filed a lawsuit in a Texas federal district court that attacks the Biden Administration's immigration policies as a failure in its duty, under the Constitution, to take care that the nation's laws be faithfully executed.
The suit sets out how the administration, with full knowledge of the likely consequences, has adopted policy after policy that, in concert, have resulted in the biggest influx of illegal aliens into America in our history. This result is the exact opposite of the purpose of federal immigration law, which is operational control of the border, defined as zero illegal entries.
When the executive knowingly frustrates the purposes of the laws it is supposed to be enforcing, and adopts policies calculated to achieve the polar opposite of those purposes, it robs Congress of its legislative power, and thus unconstitutionally fails to take care to execute those laws faithfully, the suit contends. In this way, the administration's actions go far beyond mere lax enforcement and rise to the level of a constitutional violation. No prior administration in the history of the Republic has acted, with respect to the laws it was charged with enforcing, the way Biden's has acted under the immigration laws.
The suit also describes the piles of trash, massive property damage, and other environmental devastation Dr. Vickers has experienced on his ranch (not to mention the dozens of dead human bodies he has found on his property) as a result of the administration's policies. In flat violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, these policies, despite the obvious environmental impact they cause by adding millions of people to the population, and also by letting these millions enter in a lawless, chaotic way, were adopted without any environmental impact studies whatsoever.
"By this time, it is glaringly obvious to all that the Biden Administration has deliberately crashed border security in order to flood the country with as many illegal aliens as possible," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "This is no mere policy failure, or just a violation of statutes, but flagrant disobedience to the Constitution. We hope the court sees Biden's war on the laws he is supposed to be enforcing as the constitutional offense it is, ends these policies, and grants an injunction."
The case is Vickers v. Biden, No. 2:24-cv-00169 (S.D. Tex.). |
Guardians of the Warriors ConferenceAugust 31 in Orange, VirginiaACT NOW TO SIGN UP FOR THIS TREMENDOUS CONFERENCE. Drs. Robert Malone, Meryl Nass, and Brooke Miller are joined by David Martin, Crisanna Shackelford, Brad Miller and many others who are providing transformative information so that you can live with the power of knowledge and not cower in fear. This is an opportunity to gather with others seeking and speaking the truth. Empower yourself and your family against the forces of tyranny. This conference boasts a list of internationally and nationally recognized speakers who have been working at every level to educate legislative bodies around the world as well as you. They recognize that our liberty and freedom is based in individual decisions not waiting for the bureaucratic oligarchs granting permission.
Click on this link to purchase your tickets today. https://mil.childrenshealthdefense.org/events/guardians-of-warriors-conference/ Sheila M. Furey, MD |
Posts
All Comments
