By PoliZette Staff|March 18, 2019
President Donald Trump on Monday exposed that he donated the latest installment of his $400,000 income to the Division of Homeland Security, as Fox Information reported.”While the press does not like discussing it, neither do I require them to, I donate my yearly
presidential income of$400,000.00 to various companies throughout the year
, this to Homeland Protection,”Trump tweeted.” If I really did not do it there would be hell to pay from the PHONY INFORMATION MEDIA!”Trump additionally published a photo of the check itself, which was dated March 12, 2019. While
journalism does not like covering it, neither do I require them to, I donate my yearly Governmental income of $400,000.00 to different agencies throughout the year, this to Homeland Protection. If I didn’t do it there would be heck to pay from the PHONY INFORMATION MEDIA! pic.twitter.com/xqIGUOwh4x
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2019 It was paid to the order of the Division of Homeland
Safety and security. Trump signed it; his address was listed as Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.
The White Home claimed in January that Trump donated his wage from the 3rd quarter of 2018 to the National Institute on Alcoholic Abuse as well as Alcoholism.
While he was competing president in 2016, Trump promised not to accept the $400,000 yearly governmental salary.
It must, by legislation, be paid out to the head of state of the United States.
Trump has contributed the quarterly repayments he’s gotten to various government departments and companies.
Homeland Safety and security includes a number of various firms or organizations that focus on safeguarding the U.S. and its people.
Citizenship and also Migration Solutions (USCIS), the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, Transport Safety And Security Management (TSA), Migration as well as Customs Enforcement (ICE), and also Federal Emergency Administration Agency (FEMA) are amongst those that are included under the department umbrella.
This piece originally showed up in LifeZette as well as is used by approval.
Read more at LifeZette.com:
5 Realities You Likely Never Find Out About ‘Miami Vice’ To Press America More Left, Democrats Look For Remarkable Political Election Reform Boundary Patrol Saves Five Illegal Immigrants from Arizona Mountain The article Trump Donates His Most Current Paycheck to the Division of Homeland Safety And Security showed up first on WayneDupree.com.
President Donald Trump on Monday revealed that he donated the latest installment of his $400,000 salary to the Department of Homeland Security, as Fox News reported.
“While the press doesn’t like writing about it, nor do I need them to, I donate my yearly presidential salary of $400,000.00 to different agencies throughout the year, this to Homeland Security,” Trump tweeted.
“If I didn’t do it there would be hell to pay from the FAKE NEWS MEDIA!”
Trump also posted a photograph of the check itself, which was dated March 12, 2019.
While the press doesn’t like writing about it, nor do I need them to, I donate my yearly Presidential salary of $400,000.00 to different agencies throughout the year, this to Homeland Security. If I didn’t do it there would be hell to pay from the FAKE NEWS MEDIA! pic.twitter.com/xqIGUOwh4x
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2019
It was paid to the order of the Department of Homeland Security.
Trump signed it; his address was listed as Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.
The White House said in January that Trump donated his salary from the third quarter of 2018 to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
While he was running for president in 2016, Trump pledged not to accept the $400,000 annual presidential salary.
It must, by law, be paid out to the president of the United States.
Trump has donated the quarterly payments he’s received to various federal departments and agencies.
Those include the departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Transportation and Veterans Affairs, among others.
Homeland Security contains several different agencies or organizations that focus on securing the U.S. and its citizens.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are among those that are included under the departmental umbrella.
Anti-gun Hollywood celebrities enjoyed presidential-level protection by barricades, bomb-sniffing dogs, armed guards, LAPD officers, and numerous security checkpoints as they arrived for the 2019 Golden Globes.
Security was reportedly ramped up after last month’s triple stabbing at a Manchester railway station on New Year’s Eve.
“The recent attacks in Europe only reinforce that nothing can be left to chance tactically and strategically,” a Los Angeles law enforcement official told Deadline. “Our plan is to have eyes everywhere and shut down any possible disturbance that could arise long before it gets anywhere near the venue or the event.”
Variety previewed the heightened level of security expected around the Beverly Hilton — the venue for Sunday night’s star-studded ceremony — by noting that the days of being able to park on the street, walk up, and get inside may be long gone. They report that “the City of Beverly Hills has cracked down on allowing crowds near the building.”
And while the Beverly Hill Police Department would not go into details on specificity of their security plans, they made clear they would be using “additional staff and security measures to ensure a safe and secure site, utilizing the latest technology and best practices for high-profile events.”
— Sandra Spagnoli (@Chief_Spagnoli) January 6, 2019
Beverly Hills public information manager Keith Sterling made clear that federal agencies would also be involved in security. Sterling said, “As you might imagine, we are prohibited from discussing the specific security plans we have in place. But this is an extensive, collaborative effort, with federal and local agencies assisting the Beverly Hills Police Department.”
After the good guys with guns keep Hollywood’s upper crust safe at the Beverly Hilton, the celebrities can go back home, and wake up Monday to start pushing more gun control for commoners.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
NBA star and gun control proponent LeBron James is critical of private citizens carrying guns for self-defense, but employs “at least 10 armed security personnel” at his home for defense of himself and his family.
Following the October 1, 2015, attack on gun-free Umpqua Community College Associate Press reporter Tom Withers quoted LeBron saying, “There’s no room for guns.”
He told the AP that there need to be greater penalties for carrying a gun, “legal or illegal,” to make people think twice about doing it.
After the February 14, 2018, attack on gun-free Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School the Bleacher Report indicated LeBron criticized laws allowing 19-year-old “minors” to buy a gun and called for the passage of more gun control.
But LeBron is fine with being surrounded by guns for defense of himself and his family. TMZ that news of a burglaries of “more than 24 homes of the rich and famous” in Los Angeles has led LeBron to fortify his dwelling. This fortification includes “at least 10 armed security personnel at the home — including off-duty police officers.”
Celebrity gun control advocate Kim Kardashian modeled this same kind of hypocrisy after being robbed in Paris in 2016. TMZ reported Kardashian “met with some ex-special force members from the Israeli army, ex-CIA agents as well as former Secret Service members” after the robbery occurred and hired an unspecified number of former Secret Service agents as part of the effort to “[amp] up her security to Presidential levels.”
All the while Kardashian’s public comments on guns were those favoring stricter gun laws for rank and file Americans.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at firstname.lastname@example.org. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Few U.S. government efforts are consistently more vilified than anti-poverty programs. They’re dismissed as ineffective and ridiculed as giveaways to undeserving recipients.
A new paper puts the lie to these assertions by showing that the nation’s most important anti-poverty efforts all succeed in serving their goals — in the case of Social Security, spectacularly. The authors, Bruce D. Meyer and Derek Wu of the University of Chicago, used administrative statistics from six major programs to demonstrate that five of the six “sharply reduce deep poverty” (that is, income below 50% of the federal poverty line) and the sixth has a “pronounced” impact among the working poor.
The programs that reduce deep poverty are Social Security; Supplemental Security Income; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which is what commonly is known as “welfare”; housing assistance; and food stamps, or SNAP. The sixth is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps mostly families that earn around 150% of the poverty line. (That line is about $25,100 in annual income for a family of four.)
The claim that poverty hasn’t gone down since the start of the war on poverty is nonsense.
Bruce D. Meyer, University of Chicago
Share quote & link
In each case, Weber and Wu found that the effect of each program has been materially underestimated by traditional measurements. That’s because the earlier estimates are based on Census Bureau surveys that underreport benefits from these programs. As a result, the authors say, the effects of food stamps and TANF are underestimated by one-third to one-half, and the impact of Social Security is underestimated by as much as 44%. Their research covered 2008-13, the period of the Great Recession.
“You don’t want to say that our programs haven’t reduced poverty,” Meyer told me. “They’ve had huge effects in reducing poverty.”
These findings are important because all these programs, with the possible exception of the EITC, come under constant attack by budget-cutters and other conservatives. The claim is that, despite the expenditure of trillions of dollars in public funds, the poverty rate has barely budged in more than a half-century.
Ronald Reagan’s quip on the topic, from his 1988 State of the Union address, has adorned reams of Republican screeds against the safety net: “The federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” Republicans have exploited the notion to support proposals to cut program benefits, turn anti-poverty efforts over to private or philanthropic organizations, or block-grant the funds to states (a back-door means of cutting benefits).
The truth is, however, that poverty has lost. Meyer and Wu find that Social Security alone has reduced poverty among the elderly by 75%; the other programs do more for non-elderly households, though at lower rates.
The paper doesn’t specifically address the programs’ effect on the poverty rate, but Meyer has examined that effect in other research. In a 2012 paper with James X. Sullivan of Notre Dame, for example, he concluded that the official poverty rate failed to count tax credits received by needy households such as the EITC, and overlooked food stamps, housing benefits, and other in-kind transfers that have become an ever more important component of anti-poverty spending.
An inflation index that overstated price increases over time also tended to minimize the success of the war on poverty, as did a focus on household income rather than consumption, which Meyer and Sullivan suggested was a better indicator of a household’s standard of living.
The official measurement indicated that the poverty rate fell by a scant 4.4 percentage points from 1960 to 2010, ending at 15.1%. Adjusting for flaws in the measurement however, Meyer and Sullivan determined that the percentage of Americans living in poverty had fallen by more than 26 percentage points, to about 4.5%.
“The claim that poverty hasn’t gone down since the start of the war on poverty is nonsense,” Meyer says. “You can see there were big reductions in poverty over time due mainly to two things — all the transfer programs we’ve added such as SNAP, TANF, SSI, expanded Social Security, and housing benefits — and because the economy has grown.”
The findings of Meyer and Wu give a hint of what’s at stake in the debate over the federal safety net. It’s often pointed out that the elderly are among the economically best situated Americans. But for many of them — especially the lowest-income seniors — their economic status is dependent on Social Security.
“Most people who are very low-income and retired are getting almost all their income from Social Security,” Meyer says. “If you took it away, a lot of them would be below the poverty line.” To put it in terms of the paper’s specific findings, three-quarters of the elderly who would live below the poverty line are raised above that line by Social Security.
Meyer doesn’t think that all our anti-poverty programs are equally effective or well-designed. “It’s fair to say that we could try and encourage work more,” he says. “Even the poor prefer to have a job than to be on the dole. Support for work or even provide public service employment for those who can’t find a job would be improvements.”
Exclusive: John Brennan still has top security clearance
Tucker: Former CIA director John Brennan still has top security access and has history of dishonesty and is now a partisan talking head for a cable news network. Brennan is not alone, and Sen. Rand Paul finds this ‘alarming.’
President Trump is looking into revoking the security clearances of several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday, accusing them of having “politicized” or “monetized” their public service.
She made the announcement at Monday’s press briefing, after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., called on the president to specifically revoke Trump critic and former CIA Director John Brennan’s clearance.
Sanders said Trump is considering it — and also looking into the clearances for other former officials and Trump critics: former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former CIA Director Michael Hayden (who also worked under President George W. Bush).
Sanders said Trump is “exploring mechanisms” to remove the security clearances “because [the former officials] politicize and in some cases actually monetize their public service and their security clearances in making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia.”
Sanders added that their clearances effectively give “inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”
“When you have the highest level of security clearance…when you have the nation’s secrets at hand, and go out and make false [statements], the president feels that’s something to be very concerned with,” Sanders said.
When asked whether former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden would have their security clearances revoked, she said she did not have any further information.
The topic came into the spotlight Monday morning, with Paul’s tweets against the former CIA director.
“Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance? Is John Brennan making millions of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media with his attacks on @realDonaldTrump?” Paul tweeted early Monday.
Brennan joined NBC News and MSNBC in February as a contributor and senior national security and intelligence analyst. A spokesperson for the networks did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment on Paul’s tweet, which did not list any specific allegations.
The Kentucky Republican, who last week jumped to Trump’s defense as the president faced bipartisan criticism over his summit and press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, followed up the original tweet by saying:
“Today I will meet with the President and I will ask him to revoke John Brennan’s security clearance!”
Paul’s tweets come as fellow congressional Republicans push for Brennan to testify on Capitol Hill regarding the investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates in the 2016 presidential election.
The former CIA director has been a consistent and harsh critic of the president, blasting his performance with Putin in Helsinki as “nothing short of treasonous.”
Today I will meet with the President and I will ask him to revoke John Brennan’s security clearance!
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 23, 2018
But Brennan is not the only former intelligence official to take to the media world. In April, Comey began a media blitz promoting his new memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” while Hayden and Rice also frequently make media appearances.
On Twitter, just minutes after the announcement from the White House brieifing, Hayden responded in a tweet to several journalists that a loss of security clearance would not have an “effect” on him.
Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???
— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) July 16, 2018
“I don’t go back for classified briefings. Won’t have any effect on what I say or write,” Hayden tweeted.
I dont go back for classified briefings. Won’t have any effect on what I say or write
— Gen Michael Hayden (@GenMhayden) July 23, 2018
While Mexican officials are railing against Donald Trump for having the audacity to suggest that he would be building a wall along the border of Mexico and America, it would be interesting to note how the Mexican nation views their southern border.
The Mexican southern border divides the country from the nation to their south, Guatemala.
Along the border, is a partial wall that Mexico constructed to secure the border, and to prevent Guatemalans from crossing into Mexico illegally. At the time of its construction, Guatemalan officials were calling the wall, “senseless,” and suggesting that illegal immigrants would find a way to cross into the northern nation.
Mexico has cracked down on illegal immigration in other ways that would have Liberals’ heads spinning if such measures were tried in America.
From the Washington Times:
“Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years.
Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.”
In other words, Mexico treats illegal immigration as a crime, and enforces its laws. It does not grant amnesty to millions of people who have thwarted the law, but instead incarcerates or deports them back to their home country. The Times continues:
“The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to ‘economic or national interests,’ violate Mexican law, are not ‘physically or mentally healthy’ or lack the ‘necessary funds for their sustenance’ and for their dependents.”
That means that unlike the United States, Mexico does not pay its immigrants, legal or otherwise, welfare to stay in the country. If they have crossed the border, they are expected to work to be productive members of society. This is different from the U.S, who, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, pays more money in welfare benefits to illegal immigrants than it does to its own citizens.
It seems slightly hypocritical for Mexican officials to accuse the United States of being racist and xenophobic for wanting to secure its borders, and crack down on illegal immigration, when Mexico is substantially harsher towards their illegal immigrants.
H/T The Federalist Papers
Report Complaints We welcome complaints about errors that warrant correction (inaccurate information, grammatical errors, etc). To report a problem click on the blue “Report Content” button below. If that doesn’t work you can also use our Contact Form.
For opinion articles, information and opinions put forth by contributors are exclusive to them and do not represent the views of US Chronicle.