New York girds itself for Trump’s first visit as president

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to staffers setting up for the Commander in Chief's trophy presentation in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., May 2, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

By Laila Kearney

NEW YORK (Reuters) – New York is bracing for President Donald Trump’s first trip back to his hometown since taking office in January in a Thursday visit that is expected to draw protests and snarl traffic in the United States’ most populous city.

The trip could mark a repeat of the chaotic 2-1/2 months between the real estate developer’s Nov. 8 election and Jan. 20 swearing-in, when crowds of protesters and admirers flocked outside his home in the gold-metal-clad Fifth Avenue Trump Tower.

The early days of the Trump administration have brought aggressive rhetoric and moves to crack down on immigration as well as roll back environmental regulations, much of which has ruffled feathers in the liberal northeast city.

Anti-Trump activists, some of whom have organized marches across the country since Trump’s stunning election victory, are planning loud protests to mark the native son’s return.

“A very hot welcome is being planned for Mr. Trump,” said Alexis Danzig, a member of Rise and Resist, an informal group of activists which formed as Trump came to power. “We’ll be out in full force to voice our grievances.”

Trump’s business dealings and romantic fallouts were constant city tabloid fodder in the 1980s and 1990s. His television show, “The Apprentice,” broadcast Trump to the world as the ultimate Big Apple dealmaker during the 2000s.

While the Trump brand is internationally associated with New York, fewer than one in five city residents voted for him.

Mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo, both Democrats, have said his stance on immigrants has put him at odds with a city where nearly a third of residents are foreign-born.

Protesters plan to gather Thursday near the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum, a decommissioned aircraft carrier where Trump and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull are to have their first in-person meeting. One of the pair’s last exchanges was an acrimonious phone call in January.

New York police declined to provide details of their preparations for Trump’s tour and the protests planned around it.

One lingering issue from the transition period, that of the costs of protecting the president-elect’s building was resolved earlier this week in a proposed federal budget including $61 million to reimburse New York and other local governments for providing Trump-related security.

“That’s good news for our city and the hardworking police officers faced with this unprecedented security challenge,” de Blasio said in a statement.

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Scott Malone and Andrew Hay)

Trump says chemical attack in Syria crossed many lines

A crater is seen at the site of an airstrike, after what rescue workers described as a suspected gas attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in rebel-held Idlib, Syria. REUTERS/Ammar Abdullah

By Jeff Mason and Tom Perry

WASHINGTON/BEIRUT (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government of going “beyond a red line” with a poison gas attack on civilians and said his attitude toward Syria and Assad had changed, but gave no indication of how he would respond.

Trump said the attack, which killed at least 70 people, many of them children, “crosses many, many lines”, an allusion to his predecessor Barack Obama’s threat to topple Assad with air strikes if he used such weapons. His accusations against Assad put him directly at odds with Moscow, the Syrian’s president principal backer.

“I will tell you, what happened yesterday is unacceptable to me,” Trump told reporters at a news conference with Jordan’s King Abdullah on Wednesday.

“And I will tell you, it’s already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much,” though when asked at an earlier meeting whether he was formulating a new policy on Syria, Trump said: “You’ll see.”

Vice President Mike Pence, when asked whether it was time to renew the call for Assad to be ousted and safe zones be established, told Fox News: “But let me be clear, all options are on the table,” without elaborating.

U.S. officials rejected Russia’s assertion that Syrian rebels were to blame for the attack.

Trump’s comments, which came just a few days after Washington said it was no longer focused on making Assad leave power, suggested a clash between the Kremlin and Trump’s White House after initial signals of warmer ties. Trump did not mention Russia in his comments on Wednesday but Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said it was time for Russia to think carefully about its support for Assad.

Pence said the time had come for Moscow to “keep the word that they made to see to the elimination of chemical weapons so that they no longer threaten the people in that country.”

Western countries, including the United States, blamed Assad’s armed forces for the worst chemical attack in Syria for more than four years.

U.S. intelligence officials, based on a preliminary assessment, said the deaths were most likely caused by sarin nerve gas dropped by Syrian aircraft on the town of Khan Sheikhoun on Tuesday. A senior State Department official said Washington had not yet ascertained it was sarin.

Moscow offered an alternative explanation that would shield Assad: that the poison gas belonged to rebels and had leaked from an insurgent weapons depot hit by Syrian bombs.

A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Russian explanation was not credible. “We don’t believe it,” the official said.

COUNTER-RESOLUTION

The United States, Britain and France have proposed a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that would condemn the attack; the Russian Foreign Ministry called it “unacceptable” and said it was based on “fake information”.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow would press its case blaming the rebels and Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Russia would veto the draft if Western nations went to a vote without further consultations, Interfax news agency reported.

Moscow has proposed its own draft, TASS news agency quoted a spokesman of Russia’s U.N. mission, Fyodor Strzhizhovsky, as saying on Wednesday.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, issued what appeared to be a threat of unilateral action if Security Council members could not agree.

“When the United Nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,” she told the council, without elaborating.

Trump described the attack as “horrible” and “unspeakable.” He faulted Obama for failing to carry through on his “red line” threat and when asked if he had responsibility to respond to the attack, said: “I now have responsibility”.

The new incident means Trump is faced with same dilemma that faced his predecessor: whether to openly challenge Moscow and risk deep involvement in a Middle East war by seeking to punish Assad for using banned weapons, or compromise and accept the Syrian leader remaining in power at the risk of looking weak.

While some rebels hailed Trump’s statement as an apparent shift in the U.S. position, others said it was too early to say whether the comments would result in a real change in policy.

Fares al-Bayoush, a Free Syrian Army commander, told Reuters: “Today’s statement contains a serious difference from the previous statements, and we expect positivity … from the American role.

Others who declined to be identified said they would wait and see.

Video uploaded to social media showed civilians sprawled on the ground, some in convulsions, others lifeless. Rescue workers hose down the limp bodies of small children, trying to wash away chemicals. People wail and pound on the chests of victims.

The charity Medecins Sans Frontieres said one of its hospitals in Syria had treated patients “with symptoms – dilated pupils, muscle spasms, involuntary defecation – consistent with exposure to neuro-toxic agents such as sarin”. The World Health Organization also said the symptoms were consistent with exposure to a nerve agent.

“We’re talking about war crimes,” French U.N. Ambassador Francois Delattre told reporters in New York.

Labib Nahhas, chief of foreign relations at Ahrar al-Sham, one of the biggest rebel groups in western Syria, called the Russian statement factually wrong and one which contradicted witness accounts.

“This statement provides Assad with the required coverage and protection to continue his despicable slaughter of the Syrian people,” Nahhas told Reuters.

The incident is the first time U.S. intelligence officials have accused Assad of using sarin since 2013, when hundreds of people died in an attack on a Damascus suburb. At that time, Washington said Assad had crossed a “red line” set by then-President Obama.

Obama threatened an air campaign to topple Assad but called it off at the last minute when the Syrian leader agreed to give up his chemical arsenal under a deal brokered by Moscow, a decision which Trump has long said proved Obama’s weakness.

SAME DILEMMA

The Western-drafted U.N. Security Council resolution condemns the attack and presses Syria to cooperate with international investigators. Russia has blocked seven resolutions to protect Assad’s government, most recently in February.

Trump’s response to a diplomatic confrontation with Moscow will be closely watched at home because of accusations by his political opponents that he is too supportive of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

U.S. intelligence agencies say Russia intervened in the U.S. presidential election last year through computer hacking to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. The FBI and two congressional committees are investigating whether figures from the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow, which the White House denies.

Trump’s relationship with Russia has deteriorated since the presidential election campaign, when Trump praised Putin as a strong leader and vowed to improve relations between the two countries, including a more coordinated effort to defeat Islamic State in Syria.

But as Russia has grown more assertive, including interfering in European politics and deploying missiles in its western Kaliningrad region and a new ground-launched cruise missile near Volgograd in southern Russia – an apparent violation of the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty – relations have cooled, U.S. officials have said.

The chemical attack in Idlib province, one of the last major strongholds of rebels, who have fought since 2011 to topple Assad, complicates diplomatic efforts to end a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and driven half of Syrians from their homes.

Over the past several months, Western countries, including the United States, had been quietly dropping their demands that Assad leave power in any deal to end the war, accepting that the rebels no longer had the capability to topple him by force.

The use of banned chemical weapons would make it harder for the international community to sign off on any peace deal that does not remove him. Britain and France on Wednesday renewed their call for Assad to leave power.

(Additional reporting by Maria Tsvetkova and Polina Devitt in Moscow; Michelle Nichols at the United Nations and Lesley Wroughton and Steve Holland in Washington; writing by Peter Graff, Philippa Fletcher and Yara Bayoumy; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall, Louise Ireland and Lisa Shumaker)

Pittsburgh cafe finds politics and coffee can leave bitter taste

Nick Miller, co-owner of the Black Forge Coffee House punches a customer loyalty card for a patron in the Allentown neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S., March 31, 2017. REUTERS/Maranie Staab

By David DeKok

HARRISBURG, Pa. (Reuters) – The owners of a Pittsburgh coffee shop found out the hard way that in the hyper-polarized political climate of 2017, punching holes in pictures of President Donald Trump and other conservative stalwarts is no laughing matter for some.

The Black Forge Coffee Shop has been fielding phone calls this week from people around the country upset about the cafe’s customer loyalty cards featuring a who’s who of prominent conservatives, according to its owners.

The idea puts a topical twist on a familiar perk: Buy a coffee and the store punches a hole through a photo of Trump, Vice President Mike Pence or one of the others. After all 10 conservatives are punched, the customer gets a free cup.

“We wanted to do something unique that would stand out,” said Nick Miller, who has run the shop with his business partner Ashley Corts for about 18 months. “It’s not a statement; it’s really just a joke.”

More than a few people apparently were not amused.

While some people were calling the shop to voice their displeasure, others emailed images of the owners’ faces superimposed with targets. Disparging comments about the shop suddenly started popping up Facebook and Yelp.com.

“HORRIBLE PLACE,” Yelp user Alexis K. of Oceanside, California, wrote. “I refuse to support a busines who can act this way about our president who WE ELECTED fair and square.”

In addition to Trump and Pence, the cards feature the likenesses of Senator Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. Rounding out the gallery are five conservative commentators: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson, as well as controversial pharma executive Martin Shkreli.

The shop has been handing out the cards for months, but the deluge of calls, many of them abusive, only started after Fox News picked up the story on Wednesday, the co-owner says.

Fortunately, no one who has come into the shop in person has been abusive to the staff, said Miller, a Democratic voter.

It may help that Black Forge is next door to a Pittsburgh police stations, and many officers are regular customers, Miller said.

“They thought it was pretty funny,” he said. “They were surprised no one could see it was just a joke.”

Despite the ire that the cards have stirred up, Miller said he has no regrets. After all, publicity is publicity – and business is booming, he said.

(Editing By Frank McGurty and Cynthia Osterman)

Several states jointly sue to block Trump’s revised travel ban

DAY 46 / MARCH 6: President Donald Trump signed a revised executive order banning citizens from six Muslim-majority nations from traveling to the United States but removing Iraq from the list, after his controversial first attempt was blocked in the courts.

By Mica Rosenberg

(Reuters) – A group of states renewed their effort on Monday to block President Donald Trump’s revised temporary ban on refugees and travelers from several Muslim-majority countries, arguing that his executive order is the same as the first one that was halted by federal courts.

Court papers filed by the state of Washington and joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon asked a judge to stop the March 6 order from taking effect on Thursday.

An amended complaint said the order was similar to the original Jan. 27 directive because it “will cause severe and immediate harms to the States, including our residents, our colleges and universities, our healthcare providers, and our businesses.”

A Department of Justice spokeswoman said it was reviewing the complaint and would respond to the court.

A more sweeping ban implemented hastily in January caused chaos and protests at airports. The March order by contrast gave 10 days’ notice to travelers and immigration officials.

Last month, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle halted the first travel ban after Washington state sued, claiming the order was discriminatory and violated the U.S. Constitution. Robart’s order was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump revised his order to overcome some of the legal hurdles by including exemptions for legal permanent residents and existing visa holders and taking Iraq off the list of countries covered. The new order still halts citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days but has explicit waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the country.

Refugees are still barred for 120 days, but the new order removed an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria.

Washington state has now gone back to Robart to ask him to apply his emergency halt to the new ban.

Robart said in a court order Monday that the government has until Tuesday to respond to the states’ motions. He said he would not hold a hearing before Wednesday and did not commit to a specific date to hear arguments from both sides.

PROVING HARM

Separately, Hawaii has also sued over the new ban. The island state, which is heavily dependent on tourism, said the executive order has had a “chilling effect” on travel revenues.

In response to Hawaii’s lawsuit, the Department of Justice in court papers filed on Monday said the president has broad authority to “restrict or suspend entry of any class of aliens when in the national interest.” The department said the temporary suspensions will allow a review of the current screening process in an effort to protect against terrorist attacks.

There is a hearing in the Hawaii case set for Wednesday, the day before the new ban is set to go into effect.

The first hurdle for the lawsuits will be proving “standing,” which means finding someone who has been harmed by the policy. With so many exemptions, legal experts have said it might be hard to find individuals who would have a right to sue, in the eyes of a court.

To overcome this challenge, the states filed more than 70 declarations of people affected by the order including tech businesses Amazon and Expedia, which said that restricting travel hurts their revenues and their ability to recruit employees.

Universities and medical centers that rely on foreign doctors also weighed in, as did religious organizations and individual residents, including U.S. citizens, with stories about separated families.

But the Trump administration in its filings in the Hawaii case on Monday said the carve-outs in the new order undercut the state’s standing claims.

“The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions,” the Department of Justice’s motion said.

The government cited Supreme Court precedent in arguing that people outside the United States and seeking admission for the first time have “no constitutional rights” regarding their applications.

If the courts do end up ruling the states have standing to sue, the next step will be to argue that both versions of the executive order discriminate against Muslims.

“The Trump Administration may have changed the text of the now-discredited Muslim travel ban, but they didn’t change its unconstitutional intent and effect,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement on Monday.

While the text of the order does not mention Islam, the states claim that the motivation behind the policy is Trump’s campaign promise of “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He later toned down that language and said he would implement a policy of “extreme vetting” of foreigners coming to the United States.

The government said the courts should only look at the text of the order and not at outside comments by Trump or his aides.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Grant McCool)

Trump’s revised travel ban dealt first court setback

Immigration activists, including members of the DC Justice for Muslims Coalition, rally against the Trump administration's new ban against travelers from six Muslim-majority nations, outside of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection headquarters in Washington, U.S., March 7, 2017. REUTERS/Eric Thayer

By Steve Gorman

(Reuters) – A federal judge in Wisconsin dealt the first legal blow to President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on Friday, barring enforcement of the policy to deny U.S. entry to the wife and child of a Syrian refugee already granted asylum in the United States.

The temporary restraining order, granted by U.S. District Judge William Conley in Madison, applies only to the family of the Syrian refugee, who brought the case anonymously to protect the identities of his wife and daughter, still living in the war-torn Syrian city of Aleppo.

But it represents the first of several challenges brought against Trump’s newly amended executive order, issued on March 6 and due to go into effect on March 16, to draw a court ruling in opposition to its enforcement.

Conley, chief judge of the federal court in Wisconsin’s western district and an appointee of former President Barack Obama, concluded the plaintiff “has presented some likelihood of success on the merits” of his case and that his family faces “significant risk of irreparable harm” if forced to remain in Syria.

The plaintiff, a Sunni Muslim, fled Syria to the United States in 2014 to “escape near-certain death” at the hands of sectarian military forces fighting the Syrian government in Aleppo, according to his lawsuit.

He subsequently obtained asylum for his wife and their only surviving child, a daughter, and their application had cleared the security vetting process and was headed for final processing when it was halted by Trump’s original travel ban on Jan. 27.

That executive order sought to ban admission to the United States of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Iraq – for 120 days and to suspend entry of all refugees indefinitely.

The original travel ban, which caused widespread chaos and protests at airports when first implemented, was rescinded after the state of Washington won a nationwide federal court order blocking further enforcement of the policy.

The modified executive order reduced the number of excluded counties – removing Iraq from the list – and lifted the indefinite refugee travel ban for Syrians. But opponents from several states have gone to court seeking to halt its implementation as well.

“The court appreciates that there may be important differences between the original executive order, and the revised executive order,” Conley wrote in his decision. “As the order applies to the plaintiff here, however, the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing for the reasons articulated by other courts.”

In a related development on Friday, the federal judge in Seattle who imposed a nationwide injunction on enforcement of the original travel ban refused a request to apply that order to the revised policy, saying that lawyers from states opposed to the measure needed to file more extensive court papers.

(Reporting and writing by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York and Sharon Bernstein in Sacramento, California; Editing by Sandra Maler and Mary Milliken)

More states seek to halt Trump’s new travel ban in court

Demonstrators rally against the Trump administration's new ban against travelers from six Muslim-majority nations, outside of the White House. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Dan Levine and Mica Rosenberg

(Reuters) – Several states said on Thursday they would move forward with legal challenges to a revised executive order signed by President Donald Trump this week that temporarily bars the admission of refugees and some travelers from a group of Muslim-majority countries.

The new travel order, which is set to take effect on March 16, changed and replaced a more sweeping ban issued on Jan. 27 that caused chaos and protests at airports.

The first order was hit by more than two dozen lawsuits, including a challenge brought by Washington state and joined by Minnesota.

In response to Washington’s suit, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ordered an emergency halt to the policy last month. That ruling was upheld by an appeals court in San Francisco.

Washington state Attorney General Robert Ferguson said on Thursday he planned to ask Robart to confirm that his ruling would also apply to Trump’s revised order, which would halt it from being implemented.

Ferguson told a news conference the new order harmed a “smaller group” of individuals but that would not affect the state’s ability to challenge it in court.

He said the burden was on the Trump administration to show that the court ruling from last month did not apply to its new policy.

A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman declined to comment on pending litigation.

The government has said the president has wide authority to implement immigration policy and that the travel rules are necessary to protect against terrorist attacks.

New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, said on Thursday he would be joining Washington’s lawsuit against the new ban and the state of Oregon said it would join too.

The opposition comes on top of a separate legal challenge to the new ban brought by Hawaii on Wednesday. Hawaii had also sued over the previous order and is seeking to amend its complaint to include the new ban. A hearing in that case is set for next Wednesday, a day before the clock starts on the new order.

The states and immigration advocates argue the new ban, like the original one, discriminates against Muslims.

MORE EXEMPTIONS

Trump’s new executive order was designed with the intention of avoiding the legal hurdles.

While the new order keeps a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, it excludes Iraq.

Refugees are still halted from entering the country for 120 days, but the new order removed an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria.

The revisions include explicit exemptions for legal permanent residents or existing visa holders and waivers are allowed on a case-by-case basis for some business, diplomatic and other travelers.

The first hurdle for the lawsuits will be proving “standing,” which means finding someone who has been harmed by the policy. With so many exemptions, legal experts have said it might be hard to find individuals a court would rule have a right to sue.

(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco and Mica Rosenberg in New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis and Peter Cooney)

Protecting Trump Tower cost NY City $24 million from election to inauguration

FILE PHOTO - Police and fire crew stand outside Trump Tower following a report of a suspicious package in Manhattan, New York City, U.S. on December 27, 2016. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

By Gina Cherelus

NEW YORK (Reuters) – It cost New York City about $24 million to provide security at Trump Tower, President Donald Trump’s skyscraper home in Manhattan, from Election Day to Inauguration Day, or $308,000 per day, New York’s police commissioner said on Wednesday.

The revelation prompted renewed calls for Congress to reimburse the city for the cost of protecting Trump’s private residence on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue, where his wife and their son continue to reside.

“We are seeking full federal reimbursement for all costs incurred related to security for President Trump and his family at Trump Tower,” Freddi Goldstein, a spokeswoman for Mayor Bill de Blasio, wrote in an email to Reuters.

New York City Police Commissioner James O’Neill said in a statement that the Police Department now has a dual role in protecting the first family while also serving and protecting residents in the city.

“Trump Tower itself now presents a target to those who wish to commit acts of terror against our country, further straining our limited counterterrorism resources,” O’Neill said.

Trump’s spokespeople could not be reached immediately for comment.

De Blasio asked the U.S. government in December for up to $35 million to cover security costs for protecting Trump in his home atop the 58-story skyscraper, which is located on Fifth Avenue near Central Park, an area popular with tourists.

At $24 million, the final cost was less than that. Trump spent most of his time from Election Day on Nov. 8 until his inauguration on Jan. 20 at his penthouse apartment in Trump Tower.

In addition to the police protection, the Fire Department incurred $1.7 million in costs during the time period Trump was in New York, according to O’Neill.

On days when first lady Melania Trump and the couple’s son, Barron, are the only ones in the city, security going forward will cost between $127,000 and $145,000 per day, less than when the president is in residence, O’Neill said.

When Trump is in town, the cost of police protection will go back up to $308,000 on average per day, O’Neill said. It will cost about another $4.5 million per year for the New York City Fire Department to protect the building, he said.

“We anticipate these costs will increase significantly whenever the president is in New York City,” he said.

Trump has not been back to Manhattan since his inauguration.

New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney said in a statement on Wednesday that the city’s taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a “national security obligation” and that “Congress must provide city taxpayers a full reimbursement.”

(Reporting by Gina Cherelus; Editing by Sharon Bernstein and Leslie Adler)

Donald J. Trump sworn in as President and the Bakkers are there!

Jim and Lori Bakker in Washington DC for the Presidential Inaugural events

By Kami Klein

As Donald J. Trump was sworn in and became the 45th President of the United States all of Morningside paused or at the very least, continued to work while peaking at the television, taking in the events. It has been a long road to get here and on election night we watched together as the impossible became possible.  So many of our guests on The Jim Bakker Show had prophesied a Trump Presidency.  This election was so important. After all, we have experienced our values and Christian faith attacked time and again over the last years. But God’s hand guided this election and we are watching the miracle come to fruition.

We are here, in our offices, listening to our new President tell us not to fear because “We are protected by God”.  When that was spoken the cheers could be heard echoing across the building.  It is such a relief to hear the leader of our country acknowledge God’s role here in the  United States of America!

Pastor Jim and Lori are there, live and in person, at the inauguration. Much to their surprise, they were invited to attend.  After great discussion, Pastor Jim decided that this was something that was very important and that he and Lori should participate. You, our viewers and supporters of this ministry worked incredibly hard during this election.  You prayed with Pastor, you listened to the facts that the entire staff worked diligently to collect. You heard the teachers and prophets and you not only went out and voted, you encouraged others to do so!  When President Elect Trump called Pastor a few weeks after the election, he called to thank YOU!  It was for this reason that the Bakkers decided it was important to represent all of us as our country looks to a new hope in leadership.

Jim And Lori Bakker at the Capitol Building in Washington D.C.

Jim And Lori Bakker at the Capitol Building in Washington D.C.

Yesterday, Pastor Jim and Lori attended the Washington, DC Prayer Service, hosted by Jim Garlow.  There, they prayed for our nation, for our Congress, and for our President.  Many of those who led prayer are friends of our ministry; Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, Alveda King, Marcus Lamb and David Barton were among many who prayed with the attendees.   

This morning Jim and Lori attended the Presidential Inauguration Prayer Breakfast at the Trump Hotel in Washington D.C..  This breakfast was incredibly special as Rabbi Jonathan Cahn was asked to speak.  His calm, loving presence always stirs the Holy Spirit.  Thousands of Christian leaders are in Washington D.C. to anoint the path that our new President will walk with praise to our Lord.

Tonight Jim and Lori will be attending one of the three inaugural Balls to celebrate!  We know this will be a remarkable experience and we are so eager to hear all about this amazing time in history seen from their perspective!  

Sharing in many of these events has been Dr. Lance Wallnau who is scheduled to appear next week, Wednesday, January 25th on Grace Street at Morningside.  We look forward to hearing all about the inaugural events and the coming together of Christian leadership as President Trump took office.  We hope you can join us, but if you are unable to be here for taping please look for these inspirational shows on your local station very soon!

 

Please continue to join us in prayer for our new President!  God Bless America!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. court puts Obamacare case on hold until Trump takes office

President-elect Donald Trump

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Monday brought to an end President Barack Obama’s bid to overturn a ruling that threatens to gut his signature healthcare law by putting the case on hold until after President-elect Donald Trump, who aims to repeal Obamacare, takes office.

The Obama administration had appealed a judge’s May ruling favoring the challenge filed by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives against a key part of the 2010 law. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to a request by the Republicans to delay its consideration of the government’s appeal until after Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

The Obama administration opposed the move.

If the law is repealed by Congress, the case would be moot. The court’s decision to put the case on hold will not have an immediate effect on the law, as the lower court ruling was put on hold pending the appeal. The court said both sides should provide an update on the status of the case by Feb. 21.

The challenge targeted government reimbursements to insurance companies to compensate them for reductions that the law required them to make to customers’ out-of-pocket medical payments.

Trump has said he favors repealing and replacing Obamacare but would consider retaining certain elements.

The law has enabled millions of previously uninsured Americans to obtain health insurance, but Republicans condemn Obamacare as a government overreach and have mounted a series of legal challenges.

The Obama administration appealed U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer’s ruling that the government cannot spend billions of dollars in federal funds without congressional approval to provide subsidies under the healthcare law to private insurers to help people afford medical coverage.

The House Republicans argued that the administration violated the U.S. Constitution because it is the legislative branch, not the executive branch, that authorizes government spending.

The Obama administration has interpreted the provision as a type of federal spending that does not need to be explicitly authorized by Congress.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 and 2015 issued major rulings authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts that preserved Obamacare and rejected conservative challenges.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)