Hochul's ban on cops working with ICE is an attack on public safety

 NY Post 

 By contrast, the Department of Homeland Security reported in December that New York has released 7,000 illegal migrant criminals without notifying ICE since President Donald Trump took office. Feel safer yet? 

Gov. Kathy Hochul raced to gaslight New York on Tuesday by falsely claiming her new anti-ICE law will boost public safety, when it will do the reverse.

"Yes: the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act undermines public safety — and good for her GOP gubernatorial rival, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, for standing up to her on it.

"The law “ensures that law enforcement resources are directed toward local public safety priorities,” fibbed a Hochul press release, also claiming it’ll “keep New Yorkers safe from federal overreach.”

"Utter baloney. The measure bars cops from cooperating with federal agents who are working primarily to get criminals off the streets and out of the country.

"It also bans the use of local jails to temporarily hold illegal immigrants for ICE.

"'Any police department or sheriff’s office that disobeys this law,” huffed Hochul, “will face legal action.” . . . More...

Supreme Court Upholds Trump Mail-In-Vote Restrictions

Issues & Insights

RealityBites by Broc Smith

Here’s what the Supreme Court’s order means for mail-in voting this year – Deseret News 

  "Democratic governors shared their anger online after the court’s order, with California’s Gavin Newsom vowing to sue again and keep pursuing the issue. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro posted that the decision does not deal with the substance of Trump’s order and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said despite the court’s decision, Trump doesn’t get to rewrite election law."

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting | SCOTUSblog   . . . "President Donald Trump signed the executive order at the center of the dispute in March. As it came to the court in late July, the focus of the case was on three different provisions of the order. The first instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of the adult U.S. citizens in each state and to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election. The second provision commands the U.S. attorney general to “prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials … who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.” And the third provision requires states to give the U.S. Postal Service a list of voters to whom the states intend to send mail ballots, and it prohibits the USPS from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of “enrolled” voters that the USPS will create.

"A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia challenged the government’s implementation of the order in a federal court in Massachusetts. They argued that the executive order conflicts with provisions in the Constitution that give states the power to determine voter eligibility and to set the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding congressional elections." . . .

Beating the 'Stop Nick Shirley' act

"Why are they so desperate to stop Shirley, you ask? I’m sure I don’t know, but as a wild guess, I would imagine that it’s because the Dems are getting a nice cut of the proceeds" . . .  J.R. Dunn

Californians torch Gavin Newsom’s chilling ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ — teeing up huge clash with feds

“It goes against everything we have here in America, but with the vague language, it’s shutting down speech and the freedom of the press,” Strickland told The Post. “Every person and every taxpayer, every person should be able to ask questions and hold our government accountable.”

Gavin Newsom vows revenge on Supreme Court after mail-in ballot ruling

 Gavin Newsom has vowed to fight the Supreme Court after it cleared the way for President Donald Trump to continue pursuing new restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the midterms.

"The California governor said in a statement late Monday he will launch another lawsuit against the federal government to try to block what he claimed were “Orwellian rules.” . . .

. . . "The proposed changes triggered a meltdown from California and 22 other states, which argue the federal government is attempting to interfere with states’ constitutional authority to administer elections.

"Bonta’s office claimed the Supreme Court found the states’ lawsuit was brought too early because the federal government had not yet taken all of the steps needed to implement the order. With federal agencies now moving forward, California says it plans to challenge those actions in court.

"The stakes are particularly high in California, where about 80% of voters cast their ballots by mail in 2024, compared with roughly 30% nationwide." . . .

Beating the 'Stop Nick Shirley' act   "It seems that California has commenced on yet another end run around the Constitution with AB-2624 --the “Stop Nick Shirley” act, just signed by the Werewolf of Sacramento (“his hair was perfect”).

This act is directly aimed at Shirley for his work in exposing fraud involving immigration activists, health care, and education in both Minnesota and California. Going from office to clinic to “learing center,” Shirley exposed dozens of operations that were basically fronts for funneling millions – at times tens of millions – from government programs into the pockets of various con artists, many of them illegal immigrants. The total amount uncovered thus far amounts to nearly $230 billion.

The DoJ has commenced investigations into the Minnesota allegations, largely involving Somalians (and some even associated with Ilhan Omar), with some early success. But as for California… 

Latest James O'Keefe Video Obliterates Lisa Murkowski's Anti-SAVE America Act Stance

Pass the SAVE America Act, Lisa. Whatever you just said for the congressional record has been debunked. 

DonkeyHotey

"Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is in trouble: James O’Keefe has hurled her opposition to the SAVE America Act into the wood chipper, launching a full-court press against the Alaskan Republican over her position on this critical piece of legislation aimed at shoring up election integrity nationwide. Murkowski’s general opposition is that it’s a one-size-fits-all approach. Well, regarding election integrity and upholding the law, that is the approach, Senator. What’s frustrating is that Murkowski supports all the core tenets in the bill, yet she’s been a thorn in the party’s side during the Trump era. 

"O’Keefe already posted a video showing him and his reporters obtaining ballots that do not belong to them and getting the go-ahead from election workers to cast ballots without presenting identification — O’Keefe obtained Murkowski’s brother’s ballot, even though he’s no longer a resident of the state. 

"For his follow-up, O’Keefe ventured onto Unalaska, a city on the Aleutian Island chain, where Murkowski said he would be unable to vote if the SAVE America Act was passed or something? Why? Well, they would all have to travel 800 miles to Anchorage to obtain the proper credentials. Well, that’s simply not true: . . ."    James O'Keefe video