AG Sessions to Chicago: Suck it up, Buttercup. No money for you

[occupied]

Jeff Sessions does not have the authority to placer conditions on federal grants. He talks about the rule of law but he apparently does not believe in the rule of law. To do it, he needs to get a authorization from Congress. Also many police organizations who supported Trump also oppose this.

Wrong.

When a federal agency decides to grant funds, they decide the rules for granting those funds, within FARS rules..

The rules federal agencies use must be uniform across the entire country and clearly defined, this is neither.

 

[tinydancer]

Nice!

Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel is suing DOJ for defunding sanctuary cities. Jeff Sessions' tough response: "comply with the law or forego taxpayer dollars ⋆ Powdered Wig Society

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today issued the following statement on the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for withholding federal funds due to sanctuary city status:

“No amount of federal taxpayer dollars will help a city that refuses to help its own residents.

“This administration is committed to the rule of law and to enforcing the laws established by Congress. To a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system. They have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement — Federal, state, and local — and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents. This is astounding given the unprecedented violent crime surge in Chicago, with the number of murders in 2016 surpassing both New York and Los Angeles combined. The city’s leaders cannot follow some laws and ignore others and reasonably expect this horrific situation to improve.

“The Mayor complains that the federal government’s focus on enforcing the law would require a ‘reordering of law enforcement practice in Chicago.’ But that’s just what Chicago needs: a recommitment to the rule of law and to policies that rollback the culture of lawlessness that has beset the city.

“This administration will not simply give away grant dollars to city governments that proudly violate the rule of law and protect criminal aliens at the expense of public safety. So it’s this simple: Comply with the law or forego taxpayer dollars.”

YAY!

 

[IsaacNewton]

Cons don't realize it but precedent is being set for when Democrats gain control again. They will have free reign to pull all federal funding from whatever red states or city they have a whim to do so on. This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccuum cons. You think this moment is frozen in time? It isn't, it will pass quickly and the moment will arrive where everything that YOU hold dear will be burned to the ground.

That is the precedent that Drumpf is setting. From here forward gaining power will simply mean burning down every single thing the opposition has done for the previous few years.

And when the day arrives no whining from you losers.

 

[JGalt]

Cons don't realize it but precedent is being set for when Democrats gain control again. They will have free reign to pull all federal funding from whatever red states or city they have a whim to do so on. This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccuum cons. You think this moment is frozen in time? It isn't, it will pass quickly and the moment will arrive where everything that YOU hold dear will be burned to the ground.

That is the precedent that Drumpf is setting. From here forward gaining power will simply mean burning down every single thing the opposition has done for the previous few years.

And when the day arrives no whining from you losers.

Oh waaahh! Obama threatened to withhold federal funds from states that didn't comply with his love of transsexual bathrooms, and you leftists loved him for it.

BOOM: Obama Administration Backs Off of Threat to Withhold Federal Funds From North Carolina

Texas to blackmailing Obama: Maybe you can just keep your federal funds
http://canadafreepress.com/article/...ma-maybe-you-can-just-keep-your-federal-funds
Yet Sessions wants to do the same thing to stop the wholesale murder of black people in Chicago, and you have a problem with it?

Oh, right. It's "black on black" crime, why should you care?

 

[Darkwind]

Chicago has filed suit and they will win because the criteria given for refusal is arbitrary, politically motivated and unsupported by statute. They could have simply refused to grant money without explanation and gotten away with it but refusing this money AND using it as a partisan political statement will land them in court and they will lose.

They will lose based on what precedent? How do you think the federal government blackmailed all 50 states into establishing a 21-year-old drinking age? They did it by telling them they would withhold 10% of their highway funding if they didn't pass it. The Supreme Court said that was legal, so I don't see where you get your opinion from Chicago is going to win.

Raising the drinking age was uniformly applied across all states and based on a uniform policy enacted by congress. Unless congress acts with a clear set of guidelines as to what constitutes a sanctuary city and apply it across the nation Chicago has every right to challenge arbitrary policies enacted by a bureaucrat with no clear aim other than to force actions not required by current law.

Nothing arbitrary about it. The status of residency is uniform and consistent throughout the United States. No city or State has the right to violate the law and expect funding for doing so.

 

[JGalt]

Chicago has filed suit and they will win because the criteria given for refusal is arbitrary, politically motivated and unsupported by statute. They could have simply refused to grant money without explanation and gotten away with it but refusing this money AND using it as a partisan political statement will land them in court and they will lose.

They will lose based on what precedent? How do you think the federal government blackmailed all 50 states into establishing a 21-year-old drinking age? They did it by telling them they would withhold 10% of their highway funding if they didn't pass it. The Supreme Court said that was legal, so I don't see where you get your opinion from Chicago is going to win.

Raising the drinking age was uniformly applied across all states and based on a uniform policy enacted by congress. Unless congress acts with a clear set of guidelines as to what constitutes a sanctuary city and apply it across the nation Chicago has every right to challenge arbitrary policies enacted by a bureaucrat with no clear aim other than to force actions not required by current law.

Nothing arbitrary about it. The status of residency is uniform and consistent throughout the United States. No city or State has the right to violate the law and expect funding for doing so.

And yet, states like Colorado openly and willfully disobeys federal drug laws with impunity.

 

[Darkwind]

Chicago has filed suit and they will win because the criteria given for refusal is arbitrary, politically motivated and unsupported by statute. They could have simply refused to grant money without explanation and gotten away with it but refusing this money AND using it as a partisan political statement will land them in court and they will lose.

They will lose based on what precedent? How do you think the federal government blackmailed all 50 states into establishing a 21-year-old drinking age? They did it by telling them they would withhold 10% of their highway funding if they didn't pass it. The Supreme Court said that was legal, so I don't see where you get your opinion from Chicago is going to win.

Raising the drinking age was uniformly applied across all states and based on a uniform policy enacted by congress. Unless congress acts with a clear set of guidelines as to what constitutes a sanctuary city and apply it across the nation Chicago has every right to challenge arbitrary policies enacted by a bureaucrat with no clear aim other than to force actions not required by current law.

Nothing arbitrary about it. The status of residency is uniform and consistent throughout the United States. No city or State has the right to violate the law and expect funding for doing so.

And yet, states like Colorado openly and willfully disobeys federal drug laws with impunity.

I'm a big States right guy, but the fact remains this. If the law is known and constitutional, the States must comply. They don't like it, get the law changed.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Nice!

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today issued the following statement on the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for withholding federal funds due to sanctuary city status:

“No amount of federal taxpayer dollars will help a city that refuses to help its own residents.

“This administration is committed to the rule of law and to enforcing the laws established by Congress. To a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system. They have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement — Federal, state, and local — and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents. This is astounding given the unprecedented violent crime surge in Chicago, with the number of murders in 2016 surpassing both New York and Los Angeles combined. The city’s leaders cannot follow some laws and ignore others and reasonably expect this horrific situation to improve.

“The Mayor complains that the federal government’s focus on enforcing the law would require a ‘reordering of law enforcement practice in Chicago.’ But that’s just what Chicago needs: a recommitment to the rule of law and to policies that rollback the culture of lawlessness that has beset the city.

“This administration will not simply give away grant dollars to city governments that proudly violate the rule of law and protect criminal aliens at the expense of public safety. So it’s this simple: Comply with the law or forego taxpayer dollars.”

Sooooo we should cut off the white trash who take most of our available welfare funds.

Ok.

I aim to enlighten the ignorant, self manipulated, confused and uninformed. You're welcome in advance.
21.3% of US Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month
Who Participated in Welfare?
The black population: At 41.6 percent, blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.
The black participation rate was followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent, Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent, and non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent.

 

[JGalt]

Nice!

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today issued the following statement on the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for withholding federal funds due to sanctuary city status:

“No amount of federal taxpayer dollars will help a city that refuses to help its own residents.

“This administration is committed to the rule of law and to enforcing the laws established by Congress. To a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system. They have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement — Federal, state, and local — and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents. This is astounding given the unprecedented violent crime surge in Chicago, with the number of murders in 2016 surpassing both New York and Los Angeles combined. The city’s leaders cannot follow some laws and ignore others and reasonably expect this horrific situation to improve.

“The Mayor complains that the federal government’s focus on enforcing the law would require a ‘reordering of law enforcement practice in Chicago.’ But that’s just what Chicago needs: a recommitment to the rule of law and to policies that rollback the culture of lawlessness that has beset the city.

“This administration will not simply give away grant dollars to city governments that proudly violate the rule of law and protect criminal aliens at the expense of public safety. So it’s this simple: Comply with the law or forego taxpayer dollars.”

Sooooo we should cut off the white trash who take most of our available welfare funds.

Ok.

I aim to enlighten the ignorant, self manipulated, confused and uninformed. You're welcome in advance.
21.3% of US Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month
Who Participated in Welfare?
The black population: At 41.6 percent, blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.
The black participation rate was followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent, Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent, and non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent.

And still, the left will tell you there are "more white people on welfare". I've actually heard some of them say that. What they don't take into account is that the number of black people in this country is proportionally lower than the number of white people. It's the percentages that really tell the story.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Chicago has filed suit and they will win because the criteria given for refusal is arbitrary, politically motivated and unsupported by statute. They could have simply refused to grant money without explanation and gotten away with it but refusing this money AND using it as a partisan political statement will land them in court and they will lose.

They will lose based on what precedent? How do you think the federal government blackmailed all 50 states into establishing a 21-year-old drinking age? They did it by telling them they would withhold 10% of their highway funding if they didn't pass it. The Supreme Court said that was legal, so I don't see where you get your opinion from Chicago is going to win.

Raising the drinking age was uniformly applied across all states and based on a uniform policy enacted by congress. Unless congress acts with a clear set of guidelines as to what constitutes a sanctuary city and apply it across the nation Chicago has every right to challenge arbitrary policies enacted by a bureaucrat with no clear aim other than to force actions not required by current law.

And your legal opinion of this comes from where?

 

[occupied]

Chicago has filed suit and they will win because the criteria given for refusal is arbitrary, politically motivated and unsupported by statute. They could have simply refused to grant money without explanation and gotten away with it but refusing this money AND using it as a partisan political statement will land them in court and they will lose.

They will lose based on what precedent? How do you think the federal government blackmailed all 50 states into establishing a 21-year-old drinking age? They did it by telling them they would withhold 10% of their highway funding if they didn't pass it. The Supreme Court said that was legal, so I don't see where you get your opinion from Chicago is going to win.

Raising the drinking age was uniformly applied across all states and based on a uniform policy enacted by congress. Unless congress acts with a clear set of guidelines as to what constitutes a sanctuary city and apply it across the nation Chicago has every right to challenge arbitrary policies enacted by a bureaucrat with no clear aim other than to force actions not required by current law.

And your legal opinion of this comes from where?

My knowledge of the law. You do not have to take my word for it though, some real heavy hitters of the legal profession will be saying the same thing in the coming days. Sessions knows this shit will fail but in the meantime it may be enough to get Trump off his back, probably not since all he wants of the AG is to kill the Russia investigation.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nice!

Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel is suing DOJ for defunding sanctuary cities. Jeff Sessions' tough response: "comply with the law or forego taxpayer dollars ⋆ Powdered Wig Society

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today issued the following statement on the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for withholding federal funds due to sanctuary city status:

“No amount of federal taxpayer dollars will help a city that refuses to help its own residents.

“This administration is committed to the rule of law and to enforcing the laws established by Congress. To a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system. They have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement — Federal, state, and local — and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents. This is astounding given the unprecedented violent crime surge in Chicago, with the number of murders in 2016 surpassing both New York and Los Angeles combined. The city’s leaders cannot follow some laws and ignore others and reasonably expect this horrific situation to improve.

“The Mayor complains that the federal government’s focus on enforcing the law would require a ‘reordering of law enforcement practice in Chicago.’ But that’s just what Chicago needs: a recommitment to the rule of law and to policies that rollback the culture of lawlessness that has beset the city.

“This administration will not simply give away grant dollars to city governments that proudly violate the rule of law and protect criminal aliens at the expense of public safety. So it’s this simple: Comply with the law or forego taxpayer dollars.”

...and, we will see what the court decides.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Chicago has filed suit and they will win because the criteria given for refusal is <are! arbitrary, politically motivated and unsupported by statute. They could have simply refused to grant money without explanation and gotten away with it but refusing this money AND using it as a partisan political statement will land them in court and they will lose.

Coyote Chicago

In order to finally crush judicial tyranny, Sessions must refuse to hand over the money. You don't think such a xenophile judge is also making a "partisan political" ruling? A traitor like that should first take the American flag out of his courtroom.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Chicago has filed suit and they will win because the criteria given for refusal is arbitrary, politically motivated and unsupported by statute. They could have simply refused to grant money without explanation and gotten away with it but refusing this money AND using it as a partisan political statement will land them in court and they will lose.

They will lose based on what precedent? How do you think the federal government blackmailed all 50 states into establishing a 21-year-old drinking age? They did it by telling them they would withhold 10% of their highway funding if they didn't pass it. The Supreme Court said that was legal, so I don't see where you get your opinion from Chicago is going to win.

Raising the drinking age was uniformly applied across all states and based on a uniform policy enacted by congress. Unless congress acts with a clear set of guidelines as to what constitutes a sanctuary city and apply it across the nation Chicago has every right to challenge arbitrary policies enacted by a bureaucrat with no clear aim other than to force actions not required by current law.

And your legal opinion of this comes from where?

My knowledge of the law. You do not have to take my word for it though, some real heavy hitters of the legal profession will be saying the same thing in the coming days. Sessions knows this shit will fail but in the meantime it may be enough to get Trump off his back, probably not since all he wants of the AG is to kill the Russia investigation.

President Trump should just do what his voters want and let the Left try to overthrow our government. With our 300 million guns against their bullhorns, there will soon be nothing left of the Left.

 

[TheDude]

Sessions for POUS

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sessions for POUS

Fuck that. That guy is an out of touch 1950s authoritian throwback.

 

[TheDude]

Sessions for POUS

Fuck that. That guy is an out of touch 1950s authoritian throwback.

What are his policies you disapprove of? It's that you disapprove of him because he's guilty of being a white male Republican.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Protecting criminals = Chicago's "progressive values"..........

Cant make this shit up.... lol

 

[Fenton Lum]

Jeff Sessions does not have the authority to placer conditions on federal grants. He talks about the rule of law but he apparently does not believe in the rule of law. To do it, he needs to get a authorization from Congress. Also many police organizations who supported Trump also oppose this.

Untrue. Federal grants are renewed annually, so they can't take away a previously approved grant. But future grants are now dependent on compliance.

And if Sessions really wants to play hardball, he could always say "I am filing charges against Mayor Emmanuel for violations of Title 8 USC." for harboring illegals, and deduct the fines from their funding.

Don't believe Sessions would do something like that? Just watch.

Everytime you purchase produce from a national chain you're supporting illegal immigration pard. Additionally, you might want to avoid any support of these industries as well:

U.S.-born and Unauthorized Immigrant Workers, by Major Occupation, 2012

And as for immigrants in general:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0315_immigrant_workers_appendix.pdf

Spend your dollars wisely.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Protecting criminals = Chicago's "progressive values"..........

Cant make this shit up.... lol

Your entire system protects and is run for corporate criminals and the crooks on Wall Street.