End Times and Current Events
June 27, 2017, 02:11:53 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

President Trump News

Shoutbox
June 21, 2017, 05:50:35 pm Romans 8 says: Mark, I don't want to flood your pm box. But just wanted to say I emailed bro Scott about this issue.
April 29, 2017, 05:20:18 am Christian40 says: What i'm thinking a strike on North Korea possible on some occultic date May 1? the aftermath of WW3 will bring in the Antichrist? Yeah Mayhem in May?
April 20, 2017, 04:55:44 pm Mark says:
April 06, 2017, 09:26:29 pm Mark says: TRUMP LAUNCHES 50+ MISSILES AIMED AT SYRIA
March 05, 2017, 01:16:17 am Christian40 says: i hope the rapture is this year i encourage You to keep working for the Lord
March 05, 2017, 01:06:24 am Christian40 says: i'm glad that the summer is over in Australia the heat was making me feel crazy its a good month to be in now
February 19, 2017, 07:55:44 am Romans 8 says: The month of February just FLIES BY, doesn't it? It being a < 30 day month helps too! (Unusually warm this month too!)
January 24, 2017, 09:38:51 pm Romans 8 says:
January 16, 2017, 07:17:24 pm Romans 8 says:
October 24, 2016, 03:38:23 am Christian40 says: i'm here again i get bonus time on the Net today Smiley
View Shout History
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: President Trump News  (Read 419 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: March 22, 2017, 06:08:32 pm »

I've been 'somewhat' vindicated says Trump as Republican intel committee chair says Obama administration WAS eavesdropping - and may even have picked up his personal calls

Devin Nunes stunned Washington by saying that President Donald Trump was right – sort of – when he said his calls were monitored by Obama
Intelligence collected on his transition team was 'incidental,' meaning neither Trump nor campaign insiders were targeted
Asked if the current president's personal information was among that scooped up he said 'it's possible' - before he went to the White House to brief Trump
But 'dozens of reports' from inside the U.S. Intelligence Community confirm that the Obama administration's surveillance swept up Trump's people in its net
Nunes said there were names 'unmasked' by the intel reports, which are supposed to black out names of Americans who are not investigative targets
He would not say how many members of the Trump transition team were swept up in the surveillance or whether any of them work at the White House
After meeting with Nunes, Trump told reporters he feels 'somewhat' vindicated - 'I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4339602/There-gov-t-surveillance-Trump-s-transition-team.html#ixzz4c6Cm1n6w
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: March 23, 2017, 06:32:26 pm »

Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

Republican congressional investigators expect a potential “smoking gun” establishing that the Obama administration spied on the Trump transition team, and possibly the president-elect himself, will be produced to the House Intelligence Committee this week, a source told Fox News.

Classified intelligence showing incidental collection of Trump team communications, purportedly seen by committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and described by him in vague terms at a bombshell Wednesday afternoon news conference, came from multiple sources, Capitol Hill sources told Fox News. The intelligence corroborated information about surveillance of the Trump team that was known to Nunes, sources said, even before President Trump accused his predecessor of having wiretappedhim in a series of now-infamous tweets posted on March 4.

The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.

The key to that conclusion is the unmasking of selected U.S. persons whose names appeared in the intelligence, the sources said, adding that the paper trail leaves no other plausible purpose for the unmasking other than to damage the incoming Trump administration.

The FBI hasn’t been responsive to the House Intelligence Committee’s request for documents, but the National Security Agency is expected to produce documents to the committee by Friday. The NSA document production is expected to produce more intelligence than Nunes has so far seen or described – including what one source described as a potential “smoking gun” establishing the spying.

Some time will be needed to properly assess the materials, with the likely result being that congressional investigators and attorneys won’t have a solid handle on the contents of the documents – and their implications – until next week.

Because Nunes’s intelligence came from multiple sources during a span of several weeks, and he has not shared the actual materials with his committee colleagues, he will be the only member of the panel in a position to know whether the NSA has turned over some or all of the intelligence he is citing. However, Fox News was told Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had been briefed on the basic contents of the intelligence described by Nunes.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo is also sympathetic to the effort to determine, with documentary evidence, the extent of any alleged Obama administration spying on the Trump team, sources said.

At a dramatic Wednesday news conference, Nunes claimed to have seen evidence that members of the Trump transition team, possibly including the president-elect, were subjected to “incidental surveillance” collection that Nunes characterized as legal but troubling.

“What I've read bothers me,” he told reporters, “and I think it should bother the president himself, and his team because I think some of it seems to be inappropriate.”

Schiff blasted Nunes for not coming first to the Intelligence Committee with the information.

"If accurate, this information should have been shared with members of the committee, but it has not been," Schiff said in a Wednesday statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/23/potential-smoking-gun-showing-obama-administration-spied-on-trump-team-source-says.html
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2017, 09:55:04 pm »

GOP Leaders Dropping Border Wall Funds, Says Report

House Democrats, along with a few House Republicans, are working around-the-clock to make sure funding for the estimated $12 billion border wall is not factored into the GOP budget, according to a report by The Hill.

Video Trump to House GOP: Keep Health Care Promise

“With Democrats united against new wall funding, it’s unlikely the Republicans have the votes to get it through and prevent a government shutdown,” The Hill report stated.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, in a statement to The Hill, seemed to concede that border wall funding would not be included in the GOP budget, saying the funds would come at a later date.

Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) and Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ) are the two Republican lawmakers teaming with Democrats to stop the funding of the border wall, despite both representing districts that share a border with Mexico.

“We recognize the need for robust border security and infrastructure to ensure public safety and increase cross border commerce,” Hurd and McSally wrote to the Trump administration in a letter, according to The Hill. “We also have an obligation to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

Establishment Republicans in the Senate, like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), are also teaming with Democrats to stop the border wall, with McCain worrying more about the sentiment that Mexicans have towards America.

“There is a lot of anti-American sentiment in Mexico,” McCain said during a Senate hearing with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly. “If the election were tomorrow in Mexico, you’d probably have a left-wing, anti-American president in Mexico. That can’t be good for America.”

The tone is a shift from his 2010 re-election rhetoric.

Kelly, at the time, agreed with McCain, responding “It would not be good for America, or for Mexico.”

Leading immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration (FAIR) say Trump’s border wall is a “necessity” in the fight against illegal immigration, which has poured into the U.S. for decades, as Breitbart Texas reported.

“A physical barrier on the southern border is a necessity if our government wishes to meet its obligation to protect the sovereignty and security of the United States of America,” FAIR wrote in a report. “Besides helping stem the tide of illegal immigration, it also limits the ability of drug cartels, human traffickers, terrorists and other national security threats to access the United States from Mexico and the rest of Central and South America. Furthermore, a secure border sends the message that prospective immigrants are expected to follow the rule of law.”

House Republicans like Rep. Mike Rodgers (R-AL) have been vocal in their support for Trump’s border wall, proposing legislation with other GOP lawmakers to pay for the wall by taxing illegal immigrants, as Breitbart Texas reported.

Rogers said his legislation is “simple,” saying in a statement that “anyone who sends their money to countries that benefit from our porous borders and illegal immigration should be responsible for providing some of the funds needed to complete the wall.”

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/10/gop-leaders-dropping-border-wall-funds-says-report/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2017, 06:15:26 pm »

about time
Trump to Comey: You’re Fired

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/trump-comey-youre-fired
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: May 12, 2017, 12:59:03 pm »

Breaking: Major screw up discovered that could have killed President Trump!
 
Please share and comment.

Mistakes made during maintenance on one of the Air Force One planes could have resulted in a mid-air fire, or even an explosion!

cnn.com reports: Three Boeing mechanics caused $4 million of damage and could have sparked a mid-flight fire while repairing one of the planes in the Air Force One fleet, a federal investigation has found.

The oxygen system aboard one of the two VC-25 aircraft available to President Donald Trump was contaminated while the plane was undergoing maintenance at a Boeing plant in San Antonio, Texas between April 1 and April 10, 2016, according to an incident report released by Air Force investigators this week.

The mechanics "caused the mishap by supplying and using non-oxygen clean tools, parts, components, a regulator, and an unauthorized cleaning procedure while performing oxygen system leak checks," according to the report.

Tools and components used to repair a plane's oxygen system must be cleaned in a particular way to remove any residue that could react when it comes into contact with oxygen, the report noted.

If left unchecked, a contaminated oxygen system could increase the risk of fire or even cause an explosion.

5/12/17

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=77936
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: May 24, 2017, 03:39:29 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: May 25, 2017, 05:40:16 pm »

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/court-appeal-trump-travel/2017/05/25/id/792382/
5/25/17
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Block on Trump Travel Ban

A federal appeals court dealt another blow to President Donald Trump's revised travel ban targeting six-Muslim majority countries on Thursday, siding with groups that say the policy illegally targets Muslims.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that blocks the Republican's administration from temporarily suspending new visas for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban, which Trump's administration had hoped would avoid the legal problems that the first version encountered.

"Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation," the chief judge of the circuit, Roger L. Gregory wrote.

Trump will likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A central question in the case is whether courts should consider Trump's past statements about wanting to bar Muslims from entering the country.

The federal judge in Maryland who blocked the travel ban cited comments made by Trump and his aides during the campaign and after the election as evidence that the policy was primarily motivated by the religion.

Trump's administration argued that the court should not look beyond the text of the executive order, which doesn't mention religion. The countries were not chosen because they are predominantly Muslim but because they present terrorism risks, the administration says.

The first travel ban in January triggered chaos and protests across the country as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. Trump tweaked the order after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the ban.

The new version made it clear the 90-day ban covering those six countries doesn't apply to those who already have valid visas. It got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities and removed Iraq from the list of banned countries.

Critics said the changes don't erase the legal problems with the ban.

The Maryland case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center on behalf of organizations as well as people who live in the U.S. and fear the executive order will prevent them from being reunited with family members from the banned countries.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: May 29, 2017, 05:39:19 pm »

Melania Trump Unveils Her Religion

First lady Melania Trump revealed that she is Catholic. The United Kingdom’s Daily Mail broke the news. On Wednesday, Mrs. Trump traveled with her husband to the Vatican in Rome...During her interactions with the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Melania asked the pope to bless a rosary for her. The pope blessed her string of prayer beads....

http://www.lifezette.com/faithzette/melania-trump-unveils-religion/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: June 14, 2017, 11:20:46 am »

redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=82338
Unreal! Look Who Really Sponspored The "Trump Assassination" Play

You won't believe this folks, but taxpayers paid approximately $30 million to the theatre hosting Shakespeare in the Park.

From (Link: http://www.breitbart.com)

Data published by OpenTheBooks CEO and Forbes contributor Andrew Andrzejewski reveals that the New York Shakespeare Festival, which appears to be the name of the entity operating Shakespeare in the Park, has received some $4.1 million in federal, state, and city grants in just the past three years.

“Posted OpenTheBooks.com data reveals that state and city agencies gave the largest amounts of government grants to NYSF,” wrote Andrzejewski, whose OpenTheBooks.com mines a database of 3.5 billion captured government transactions at the federal, state, and local levels.

“Since 2010, New York City gave NYSF $23.5 million to build and renovate their public theater and funded an additional $5 million as ‘payments to cultural institutions.’” Andrzejewski wrote.

“Over the past three years, the New York state agency ‘Council on the Arts’ chipped in $310,000.”

The Public Theater’s latest Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar has caused national controversy over the bloody scene in which a stand-in for Trump — complete with blond hair and a business suit — is stabbed to death.

The resulting backlash against the play has led companies including Delta Air Lines and Bank of America to pull funding from the theater.

6/14/17
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: June 26, 2017, 12:37:17 pm »

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-allows-trumps-travel-ban-in-part/ar-BBDhdtC?li=BBnb7Kz
Supreme Court allows Trump's travel ban, in part
6/26/17

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to let President Trump's immigration travel ban go into effect for some travelers, reversing the actions of lower federal courts that had put the controversial policy completely on hold.
black desk and cards

The court also agreed to hear the case involving travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries and all refugees in the early fall, leaving open the chance that it could reverse Monday's verdict if challengers can prove the ban is illegal or unconstitutional.

The justices' action gives Trump a partial victory following a string of defeats from coast to coast, and he wasted no time applauding it.

"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security," Trump said in a statement. "It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective."

© Provided by USA Today That was immediately contested by immigrant rights and civil liberties groups challenging the travel ban, who argued that most would-be travelers cannot be barred under the court's compromise ruling. "The hope is that this really only impacts a very small number of people,” said Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

Until Monday, the travel ban had been under siege in federal courts. Some struck it down as a form of religious discrimination against Muslims. Others said it showed bias based on nationality and exceeded the president's authority without a firm national security justification.

The high court's action, therefore, represents at least a minor setback for immigration rights and civil liberties groups that had bottled up two executive orders through legal action, exacerbating the president's battles with federal courts that began during the election campaign.

The revised travel ban, issued in March, blocks most new immigrants from six predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. As a result of the high court's action, the ban can be implemented for some travelers, along with a long-delayed review of vetting procedures used to screen foreigners trying to enter the United States.

Since he signed the first executive order Jan. 27, Trump has pitched the travel ban as a temporary anti-terrorism policy needed to give the government time to review and improve screening procedures, both worldwide and for the particular countries in question: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The court's action was written without an author, but with a partial dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who would have allowed the ban to apply to all travelers.

"The government's interest in enforcing (the ban), and the executive's authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States," the court said.

On the other hand, it said the ban "may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

The action isn't expected to set off the kind of chaos seen around the world when Trump signed the first travel ban into effect on Jan. 27. That executive order, which went into effect immediately, barred all travelers from seven countries from entering the U.S. even if they had green cards, valid visas or refugee status. It led to at least 746 people temporarily detained at U.S. airports, some being deported back to their home countries, and untold numbers of others prevented from boarding their flights at airports overseas.

The revised travel ban, with the court's limitations, now can go into effect this week, based on a memorandum recently signed by the president. It allows travelers with green cards and visas to continue entering the U.S., but still forbids all refugees. That means some refugees may get stuck, but nowhere near the number of people ensnared by the first ban.

The travel ban originally was proposed as a way to free resources for the review of screening procedures, but the two were separated by the most recent federal appeals court ruling that allowed only the review to go forward. That created the possibility that the review could be completed before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the travel ban case, rendering the dispute moot.

Because visa and green card holders were included in the first ban, it immediately produced confusion and protests at U.S. airports. Within days, federal judges in New York and Boston intervened, and a third federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide injunction in early February.

Trump unveiled a revised order in March that smoothed out some of the original ban's rougher edges. It called for a 90-day ban on travelers from six countries and 120 days for refugees, but it excluded visa and green card holders, deleted a section that gave preference to Christian minorities, and included a waiver process for those claiming undue hardship.

That order was blocked by a federal judge in Hawaii hours before it was to go into effect on March 16, as well as by another federal judge in Maryland. The Justice Department appealed both rulings, leading to similar slap-downs by federal appeals courts in Richmond May 25 and San Francisco June 12.

As it reached the Supreme Court, the travel ban had been struck down on both constitutional and statutory grounds. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 10-3 that it discriminated against Muslims by targeting only countries with overwhelmingly large Muslim majorities. But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously that the ban violated federal immigration law by targeting people from certain countries without improving national security.

Through all the defeats, Trump was forced to play on what amounts to his opponents' home turf: The 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, is dominated by President Bill Clinton's nominees. The 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, is dominated by President Barack Obama's nominees. All 13 judges on those two courts who voted to strike down the revised travel ban were appointed by Democratic presidents.

By contrast, the Supreme Court includes five justices named by Republican presidents and four by Democrats. Chief Justice John Roberts is a strong proponent of executive authority, particularly in foreign affairs. Alito has spent his entire career working for the government. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a 2015 immigration case that a "legitimate and bona fide" reason for denying entry to the United States can pass muster. Gorsuch is a stickler for the written text of statutes — and banning Muslims isn't mentioned in Trump's executive order. Thomas is the most conservative of all.

Despite those advantages, Trump at times has been his own worst enemy. His presidential campaign speeches, official statements and tweets gave opponents of the ban fodder for their challenges -- from Trump's vow in 2015 to seek "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" to his lament this month that his lawyers should have pushed for a "much tougher version" rather than the "politically correct" order he signed in March.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines