A prior ruling that allowed New York City to give local voting rights to certain groups of foreigners was upheld in court this week.

According to Breitbart, the New York City Council, dominated by Democrats, decided in 2022 that over 800,000 foreign nationals would be able to vote in local elections -- a decision that sparked immense backlash.

A coalition of unlikely allies eventually sued Mayor Eric Adams (D) and the city’s Board of Elections over the new rule.

Later that year, the state's high court decided that the ruling violated the state's constitution, but the decision was ultimately appealed.

What happened?

The original ruling was shocking, given that it would have marked the first city to give voting rights to people who are literally not American citizens.

Breitbart noted what happened after the original rule was issued:

Black New Yorkers, along with naturalized American citizens, the New York State Republican Party, the Republican National Committee (RNC), and Democrat officials like Councilman Robert Holden subsequently sued Mayor Eric Adams (D) and the city’s Board of Elections.

Thankfully, commonsense prevailed once again in the New York Appellate Division, which this week upheld the state's Supreme Court ruling that made it clear only American citizens have a right to vote in elections, including local ones.

The Appellate Division's decision read, "Since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the Local Law is null and void on the grounds that it violates the New York State Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Law."

Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), represented Black New Yorkers in the original lawsuit against the new voting rule. He praised the Appellate Division's ruling.

"The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s lawsuit shows that not only did this foreign citizen voting law violate New York’s laws but also the U.S. Constitution and Voting Rights Act," Adams said. "Members of the New York City Council made explicit statements that race was the motivation behind this voting law. In America, we do not allow race-based voting restrictions."

Greater concerns

Part of the concern, aside from race issues, was that such a rule would have likely led to foreign nationals being able to hold public office, and given the large makeup of foreign nationals in New York City, it could have quickly turned into a disastrous issue.

Social media users reacted to the news of the court's decision to uphold the ruling.

"Finally some sense," one X user wrote.

Another X user wrote, "This should be a National Law!"

President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) not only failed to reduce inflation, but it ended up costing Americans even more hard-earned cash as it resulted in massive spending boosting for the left's "green energy" initiatives. 

The groups, individuals and companies that stand to gain from the left's aggressive green push are apparently ready to go to great lengths to keep their green cash cow health.

Breitbart exclusively obtained a shocking document from a trade association made up of companies that back Biden's green initiatives.

The 66-page document details how it wants to aggressively pressure Republican lawmakers into not supporting legislation that would strip away green energy policies and subsidies.

What does it say?

The document was reportedly leaked from an environmental activist group called the American Clean Power Association, or ACA.

The association's website states that it's the "leading voice of more than 800 companies from across the clean power sector that are committed to meeting America’s national security, economic and climate goals with fast-growing, low-cost, and reliable domestic power."

Breitbart noted that "ACP Confidential Information" was stamped on every page of the document, meaning it likely wasn't intended for public viewing. The document breaks down a financial report for the association and other normal-looking business items for such an association.

But the outlet noted that deeper into the document, starting on page 13, details were provided as to how funds would be spent to "protect the Biden agenda—and specifically the IRA—from the Republicans on Capitol Hill and from former President Donald Trump should he win the election in November," Breitbart wrote.

It should be noted that the association is well-equipped to do so, given that it has roughly $50 million in cash, on hand, to aggressively protect the Inflation Reduction Act from Republican interference.

One section made clear that it intends to spend whatever is necessary to protect Biden's IRA, saying, "Based on this request, the staff is proposing to spend $7M for a surge campaign, with $5M from ACP’s reserve funds to help implement and insulate the IRA from repeal or harmful revision. The Finance Committee reaffirms that ACP’s financial position enables this level of expenditure in 2024."

Convenient timing

Notably, the leaked document was made public shortly after a New York Times report that former President Donald Trump, and conservatives in general, have Biden's IRA in the "crosshairs."

Breitbart noted:

Later in the ACP document, on page 16, begins a detailed multi-page explanation of the ACP’s plot to defend the Biden energy agenda. Under a section titled “Defending the IRA,” the ACP document reveals it is the group’s “top priority” as a trade association.

The association openly stated that it plans to ramp up spending to do whatever it takes to protect Biden's green agenda, even as it stretches beyond the 2024 election.

The document made clear that it's willing to do whatever it takes, and is essentially a full admission that the companies involved in such an association can't survive without government funding at this point. It's truly sickening.

Eric Trump vehemently criticized the civil fraud trial's outcome, denouncing the nearly $355 million fine imposed on his father, former President Trump, by New York Judge Arthur Engoron as "horribly sad."

In an interview on Fox News’s “The Ingraham Angle” Friday evening, Eric Trump vehemently defended his father, asserting his innocence and highlighting his significant contributions to shaping the New York City skyline.

Eric Trump slams "horribly sad" fraud ruling: "This is not the state that we grew up in" https://t.co/WCA4Ke8Ahn

— The Hill (@thehill) February 17, 2024

The comments

He portrayed the fine as unjust retribution for actions he claimed were not only lawful but also beneficial for the city's financial landscape.

Eric Trump lamented what he saw as a biased trial, lamenting that numerous witnesses had attested to his father's innocence and the lack of wrongdoing within the Trump Organization.

He accused Judge Engoron of disregarding this evidence and using the trial as a means to discredit and punish the Trump family.

The ruling's details

His comments come in the aftermath of Judge Engoron's ruling, which ordered the former president to pay over $355 million for allegedly inflating and deflating his net worth to gain tax and insurance benefits.

Prior to the trial, Judge Engoron had already found Trump and his top executives, including Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., liable for fraud.

Despite the fine being slightly lower than the amount requested by Attorney General Letitia James, Eric Trump condemned the ruling as a politically motivated attack on his father and the Trump Organization.

He accused New York's leadership of orchestrating a biased trial and weaponizing the legal system for political gain.

What's next?

Eric Trump expressed concern over the implications of the trial's outcome for New York's reputation, warning potential residents to be cautious about moving to a state he portrayed as hostile to business interests.

He criticized the court's handling of the case, alleging that Judge Engoron had predetermined the outcome and unfairly targeted the Trump family.

In response to the ruling, Eric Trump vowed to appeal, describing it as a miscarriage of justice against his father during his attempt to return to the White House for another term as president.

He pledged to fight tirelessly to overturn the decision and restore what he viewed as his father's unfairly tarnished reputation, hoping to see the verdict reversed in the days ahead despite the ruling for a massive financial payment against Trump's companies.

The makeup of House Democrat leadership is set to change in a big way after a veteran leader announced he's stepping out of his role. 

According to the Washington Examiner, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) announced that despite his intentions to run for reelection this year, he'll be stepping down from his caucus leadership role.

Clyburn, 83, did not reveal any specific reasons as to why he's stepping down, but many believe it's due to Democrats wanting younger, fresher leadership in the lower chamber.

The elderly Democrat has been one of President Joe Biden's top allies in Congress, and is credited with helping Biden secure the nomination in the last election due to his high-profile and influential status in his home state of South Carolina.

Statement released

Clyburn announced the decision to step down from his leadership position this week and expressed confidence in the remaining leaders of the House Democratic Caucus.

The Examiner noted:

He expressed confidence in the current Democratic leadership, including Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA), and Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (D-CA), to “continue the important work of putting people over politics.”

He informed Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) of his intent to step down.

"I have informed Leader Hakeem Jeffries of my intention to step down as Assistant Democratic Leader of the House Democratic Caucus.  I am deeply grateful for the confidence my colleagues have placed in me throughout my career, especially as Co-President of my Freshman Class, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Vice Chair and Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, and twice as Majority Whip and Assistant Democratic Leader," a statement on his website read.

Clyburn also made it clear in his statement that he fully intends to run a reelection campaign, stating that the "greatness of America is at peril."

"I will run for re-election for the Sixth Congressional District," he said. "Events of the last several years have made it clear that the greatness of America is at peril, and the threats to our continued pursuit of ‘a more perfect Union’ are real."

Social media reacts

Users across social media reacted to the news of Clyburn stepping down, with many saying it's "about time" given his age.

"About time. James Clyburn is reading the tea leaves on Columbia South Carolina and it’s not gonna make him look good. It’s time for the SC young political bucks to Primary this man and take over. Clyburn is out of step with reality," one X user wrote.

Another X user wrote, "But of course he has no intention of leaving; like the rest of the progressives clinging to power is their life's blood."

It'll be interesting to see who House leaders select to replace Clyburn.

Now that former President Donald Trump is undoubtedly the GOP presidential nominee, many wonder not only who he'll select as his running mate, but also who Trump might hire for his cabinet. 

According to the Washington Examiner, a source reported that Trump has been in talks with Tulsi Gabbard regarding the future of the Department of Defense.

Gabbard, a former Democratic lawmaker out of Hawaii, left the party last year and turned independent, and has gained favor with Trump's base.

Her views and policy positions align with those of Trump, making her a prime candidate for a Trump cabinet position, should he win the general election later this year.

Overseas policies

Republican strategist Andrew Surabian pointed out that Gabbard's views of defense-related overseas policies are a close match with Trump's and Republican voters, making her a potentially prime candidate to lead the DoD.

BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard held meeting with President Trumphttps://t.co/4KnqbLAAxBhttps://t.co/4KnqbLAAxB

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) February 14, 2024

"She appeals to Republicans who are skeptical of intervention overseas, which is now a majority of Republican voters," Surabian said.

The Examiner noted:

Trump has claimed that one of his biggest mistakes as president was not choosing good defense and foreign policy leaders. Trump said that this time, he would select leaders who share his views. Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party in 2022, has not publicly commented on the discussions, but she often agrees with Trump’s approaches.

Trump's version of America's involvement in overseas conflicts and situations will greatly contrast President Joe Biden's approach. One former Trump official explained the 45th president's approach.

"He sees these treaties and partnerships as transactional relationships, and he is constantly looking at the ledger and saying, ‘Is this a good deal or this a bad deal?’” the former senior official reportedly said. "He views America’s forces abroad, and America’s protection, as a service to be paid for."

Social media reacts

News of Gabbard's meeting with Trump garnered mixed reactions and varying speculation on what role she might play in a second Trump administration.

"I don't feel SecDef from her, more like SecState," one X user wrote.

Another X user wrote, "This would be the smartest move Trump ever makes."

Only time will tell if Gabbard will play a role in a second Trump administration. Some have even suggested she'd be a perfect VP running mate, given that she polls well with MAGA voters and would be able to reach important demographics that Trump probably couldn't.

While President Joe Biden's 2024 presidential campaign might have reluctantly feared too many Democratic competitors, there's one less they have to worry about now.

According to the Washington Examiner, author Marianne Williamson, who unsuccessfully ran in 2020, dropped out of the 2024 race after the Nevada primary.

Biden trounced Williamson, badly, in the Nevada Democratic primary, leaving her no choice but to call it quits.

Williamson did so poorly, in fact, that she was also beaten by the "none of these candidates" option on the Nevada ballot.

Campaign suspended

Williamson released a statement in the wake of the poor showing in Nevada, attempting to sugarcoat what was an embarrassingly bad beating she took by the 81-year-old, low-polling, often-confused president.

"I read a quote the other day that said that sunsets are proof that endings can be beautiful too,” Williamson said in a video message this week. "And so today, even though it is time to suspend my campaign for the presidency, I do want to see the beauty."

While her words were pleasant, there was certainly no "beauty" in getting beat by "none of these candidates."

“I read a quote the other day that said sunsets are proof that endings can be beautiful too,” Marianne Williamson said when ending her campaign. “And so today, even though it is time to suspend my campaign for the presidency, I do want to see the beauty.” https://t.co/yqQ4D2B4FV

— Christopher Cadelago (@ccadelago) February 8, 2024

The Washington Examiner noted:

With 84% of the vote in, Biden got 89.3% of Nevadan Democrats’ vote, followed by 5.8% for “none of these candidates” and 2.9% for Williamson.

Many across social media had called on Williamson and other Democratic challengers to face reality and drop out in order to consolidate behind Biden, though the president is having a difficult time convincing his base to get behind him.

Social media reacts

Williamson didn't receive much in the way of support across social media in recent weeks, especially given her other poor showings in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

"Self-help guru Marianne Williamson has suspended her presidential campaign after terribly poor showings in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, ending her long-shot primary challenge to President Biden. Honestly, did you notice and do you even care?" one X user wrote

Another X user wrote, "She never had a chance, despite being better than Biden. But that's damning by faint praise, almost anyone is better than Biden."

Now, the focus has turned to Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN), another Democratic challenger. Many have called on Phillips to follow in Williamson's footsteps. Only time will tell if he buckles.

Former President Donald Trump and his lawyers were dealt an unfortunate legal blow by a liberal-leaning federal appeals court regarding his immunity defense.

Trump has since vowed to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But according to Breitbart, some, including retired Federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, believe that the high court will ultimately let the lower court's decision stand.

It should be noted that Luttig and a group of anti-Trump Republicans filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that Trump is not immune. He has also insisted that Trump incited an "insurrection" on Jan. 6, 2021.

What did he say?

Luttig, during an interview this week with MSNBC’s “Deadline," argued why he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately not get involved in the matter.

His comments came in the wake of the appeals court's decision, which was celebrated widely by the left and anti-Trump Republicans.

"Today’s decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was historic. It’s a landmark decision holding that a former president is never immune from federal prosecution for offenses committed against the united states when he or she was President of the United States," Luttig said.

Retired conservative federal judge Michael Luttig on the appeals court ruling:

“If there’s one single instance in which he or she is not immune, it is where as here with the former president, he or she attempted to remain in power in violation of the executive vesting clause of… pic.twitter.com/SQyfghbXNV

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 7, 2024

Luttig continued, "I do not expect the Supreme Court to review that decision by the D.C . Circuit. in the D.C. circuit case, a number of my friends and former colleagues in six Republican administrations prior to the Trump administration filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Circuit court of appeals in which we argued that a president is never immune from federal prosecution for offenses committed while he was president."

"But if there’s one single instance in which he or she is not immune, it is where as here with the former president, he or she attempted to remain in power in violation of the executive vesting clause of the constitution preventing the peaceful transfer of power and denying his successor in this instance President Joe Biden the powers of the presidency to which he had rightfully become entitled."

Trump vows to appeal

The former president's camp immediately vowed to appeal the lower court's ruling.

"If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party. Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!” said Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung.

Cheung added, "Deranged Jack Smith’s prosecution of President Trump for his Presidential, official acts is unconstitutional under the doctrine of Presidential Immunity and the Separation of Powers."

Only time will tell if the high court rules differently on the matter. It'll be fascinating to watch.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made it clear recently that she thinks she's working too hard and under intense stress due to the decisions coming out of the conservative-majority high court. 

According to USA Today, Sotomayor laid it all out in front of a group of students at the University of California, Berkley School of Law.

She told the students that each "loss" her side takes is a traumatizing moment.

Liberal justices have taken a long list of losses since former President Donald Trump shored up the conservative side of the high court's bench, giving it a dominant conservative majority with an unprecedented three appointments.

Rare glimpse

Sotomayor's rant session made headlines, given that Supreme Court justices are usually mature and classy enough to keep their personal feelings out of the public view.

''I live in frustration," Sotomayor told the Berkley Law students. "Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart."

"Every loss truly traumatizes me": Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor responds to question about how she copes with the steady stream of rulings by the court’s conservative majority while speaking at UC Berkeley on Monday.https://t.co/ykKm5IIwSI

— San Francisco Chronicle (@sfchronicle) January 30, 2024

Making herself out to be a hero for the liberal cause, she told the students, "I have to get up in the morning and keep fighting,"

"I happen, when I dissent, to think the others got it wrong," she said, laughing. "And they often do."

USA Today noted, "Her remarks came as the court is considering major issues related to gun and abortion rights, social media and whether former President Donald Trump is disqualified from returning to the White House."

"Fight the good fight"

Erwin Chemerinsky, Berkeley’s law school dean, asked the liberal Supreme Court justice how she would respond to students who are discouraged with some of the high court's recent decisions that leaned toward the conservative side.

"What choice do you have but to fight the good fight?" she said, according to Bloomberg Law. "You can’t throw up your hands and walk away. And that’s not a choice. That’s an abdication. That’s giving up."

Notably, Sotomayor wasn't asked about bombshell reports last year that her staffers "prodded" local schools and libraries to buy her books, as the Associated Press reported at the time.

That part of her job probably isn't as traumatizing, given the money she makes from it.

Fulton County, Georgia DA Fani Willis' year just went from really bad to much worse.

According to ABC News, Willis, along with prosecutor Nathan Wade, have been subpoenaed "to testify at an upcoming evidentiary hearing set to examine allegations that they were involved in an improper relationship while investigating the former president."

The bombshell revelation was revealed in a recent lawsuit filing.

Willis has been accused of having an inappropriate relationship with Wade, who was going through a divorce.

What's happening?

Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for one of former President Donald Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia indictment, filed the lawsuit against Willis after she claimed she was being stonewalled in her attempts to obtain information via public records requests.

ABC News noted:

The claim that Willis and Wade had been subpoenaed to testify was contained in a copy of the lawsuit, obtained by ABC News, that was filed by the attorney for one of Trump's co-defendants in the election case, accusing the Fulton County district attorney's office of "intentionally withholding information."

Willis' office, not surprisingly, denied the claim, and told ABC News, "We provided her with all the materials she requested and is entitled to."

The situation is especially bad for Willis and Wade, who will both testify on the matter in a televised hearing set to air on Feb. 15.

Trump and his attorneys have already used Willis' alleged inappropriate financial and romantic relationship with Wade as grounds to have her charges against him thrown out.

ABC News added:

Merchant, the attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, made the misconduct allegations against Willis earlier this month in a filing that seeks to dismiss the election interference indictment and disqualify Willis based on allegations that she "engaged in a personal, romantic relationship" with prosecutor Nathan Wade that allegedly resulted in financial gain for both of them.

Social media reacts

The news that Willis and Wade will now have to testify resulted in a massive social media response, with many additional questions raised regarding how it affects Trump's election interference case.

Just In: Thjngs appear to be getting worse for DA Fani Willis. Willis and her alleged lover Nathan Wade have been hit with subpoenas to testify in the Trump case.

Also, they’ve been hit with lawsuits from attorneys representing Michael Roman and Judicial Watch. The lawsuits… pic.twitter.com/SMeSQQa9Cy

— 🇺🇸Travis🇺🇸 (@Travis_in_Flint) January 31, 2024

"Willis was paying Wade with state money to get orders for indicting and charging Trump directly from the White House," one X user wrote.

Another X user wrote, "Gotta love it when they go after Trump and they end up being the one that gets prosecuted! They all think they are untouchable!"

Former President Donald Trump, despite his legal challenges and constant stream of negative press from a bulk of the mainstream media, is cruising toward an easy victory.

According to Breitbart, in the wake of historic victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, the former president has already declared victory in Nevada, where former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, his last opponent, is not running.

Trump held nothing back in his message, writing, "WE JUST WON NEVADA!"

After Trump crushed Haley in New Hampshire this week, the former president and many of his allies, including some of his former GOP opponents, have dialed up the pressure on Haley to exit the race and allow the party to rally behind him fully.

What's happening?

The Nevada situation is certainly unique and somewhat weird. Breitbart cited a New York Times quote as an explanation as to why Trump will win the state.

"A 2021 law requires Nevada to hold state-run presidential primaries, but the state G.O.P. has opted to host its own caucuses two days later. Only the caucus results will be used to allocate delegates," the Times quote read.

Haley opted to take part in the state-run primary and will not take part in the Republican Party's caucuses, which will determine who takes home the delegates.

In other words, Haley's not even on the list, and Trump will capture all 26 delegates, further cementing his path to victory as the GOP presidential nominee for 2024.

In the short term, Haley will cede to Trump the Nevada caucuses and focus on her home state of South Carolina. But then what?

Nikki Haley’s Strategies? https://t.co/yTIAw7QS3r via @VDHanson

— Victor Davis Hanson (@VDHanson) January 25, 2024

Breitbart noted:

Former 2024 candidates, like Vivek Ramaswamy and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), were to participate in the caucuses, CBS News previously documented, but both men have dropped out of the race and endorsed Trump.

Focusing on South Carolina

Haley and her campaign still believe they have a shot in her home state of South Carolina, even as polls show otherwise and as South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a former presidential candidate, endorsed Trump.

After pretending she didn't get squashed on Tuesday night in New Hampshire, Haley released what seemed to many like a forced, optimistic statement regarding where her sights are set.

"This race is far from over. There are dozens of states left to go, and the next one is my sweet state of South Carolina," Haley said Tuesday night.

Many believe that if and when she's beaten in her home state, she'll have no choice but to drop out and finally stop wasting donor and RNC money on her campaign, which isn't really going anywhere.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts