Bari Weiss, a Jewish, centrist, young opinion writer and editor for The New York Times, left her position at the paper, leaving a resignation letter that is a damning indictment of how the Far Left and its bullying culture has taken over the paper.
The de-evolution of the Times is worth examining, not just because it is happening at one of the country’s papers of record, but because these same tactics are being mimicked at institutions across the country.
Weiss was hired by the Times in 2017 to bring centrist and conservative opinions
as well as new voices to the paper following the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, an election that the paper failed to anticipate. “It didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers,” according to Weiss as well as Dean Baquet, the paper’s executive editor.
“But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned,” Weiss writes.
Instead, she says, a new “consensus” emerged in the press and especially at the Times:
“Truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else …”
This perception of reality was something antithetical to Weiss’ beliefs.
“I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.”
In her letter of resignation, Weiss describes the constant bullying she was subjected to at the Times, both professionally and personally.
For her “forays into Wrongthink,” she was called a Nazi and a racist by fellow staff members. Particularly distasteful were the comments she received when she wrote about something having to do with Jews.
Coworkers thought to be friendly to her were badgered. Weiss writes that she was openly demeaned on the Times’ Slack channels, a company-wide messaging app in which top management also participates.
In true Orwellian tradition, her coworkers demanded that she be “rooted out” if the Times was to be “a truly ‘inclusive’ “ company. Others simply posted emojis of axes next to her name. In addition, she notes,
“Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.”
As to the editorial bullying going on at the Times, Weiss writes that stories are chosen with “extreme selectivity,” to the point where writers and editors self-censor to avoid the inevitable harassment of offering anything but the accepted opinion.
“If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”
Every employee is well aware of the perils of going against the narrative, Weiss contends. Even if a higher-up says they will stand behind a writer’s or editor’s work that goes against groupthink, Weiss advises not to believe it.
“Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry,” she says.
In his dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell coined the phrase “Newspeak,” a language which was designed, in Orwell’s words, “to diminish the range of thought.”
Not only was Newspeak used to obfuscate (calling expulsion an act of “inclusiveness” in Weiss’ case), its purpose was also to promote a narrowing of thought about and awareness of the world.
Newspeak fundamentally left citizens in a binary world of simple dichotomies – good and evil, war and peace. You are either with us or against us.
Our modern version of Newspeak removes nuance from our perceptions of the world — either through indoctrination by the press or through the intimidation and shaming tactics used by the cancel culture.
If there was ever a time to speak up for free speech, it is now. By all accounts, it does work.
The recent attempt by the cancel culture to take down Goya Foods, because its (Hispanic) CEO praised President Trump at a recent White House event, has been an epic fail. Instead a counter “buy-cott” movement has flipped the narrative and seen a full-on buying spree of the company’s products.
As for Bari Weiss, her letter also leaves us with hope. Addressing young and upcoming writers and editors, she notes:
“As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day.
“’An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,’ you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2020-07-15 10:32:012020-07-15 10:32:28Editor Resigns, Leaves Scathing Indictment of New York Times
President Donald Trump dismissed the notion that black Americans are being killed by police in disproportionate numbers Tuesday, telling CBS News’ Catherine Herridge that police kill white Americans too.
“Let’s talk about George Floyd,” Herridge began. “You said George Floyd’s death was a terrible thing. Why are African Americans still dying at the hands of law enforcement in this country?”
“And so are white people,” Trump responded. “So are white people. What a terrible question to ask. So are white people — more white people, by the way, more white people.”
Herridge also asked Trump about his disdain for movements against Confederate monuments and symbols, which he argued are freedom of speech issues.
“All I say is freedom of speech. It’s very simple. My attitude is freedom of speech. Very strong views on the Confederate flag. With me, it’s freedom of speech. Very simple. Like it, don’t like it, it’s freedom of speech.”
Trump’s comments come as the newest example of his harsh stance on anti-monument protesters. He devoted much of his messaging on the 4th of July to condemning protesters across the country who seek to dismantle American history.
“I am here as your president to proclaim before the country and before the world: This monument will never be desecrated; these heroes will never be defaced; their legacy will never ever be destroyed; their achievements will not be forgotten, and Mount Rushmore will stand forever as an eternal tribute to our forefathers and our freedom,” Trump said in front of Mount Rushmore on July 3.
“This movement is openly attacking the legacies of every person on Mount Rushmore,” Trump said of protesters. “Today we will set history and history’s record straight.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2020-07-15 05:36:182020-07-15 05:38:31VIDEO: Trump On Black People Killed By Police: ‘So Are White People’
The Black Lives Matter Movement has given new impetus to the “cancel culture” in the ascendency in Western liberal democracies. Every day now someone in business, politics or the arts is cancelled for inappropriate comments or controversial views that they held while living in less enlightened times, ie, less than a year ago.
Author J.K. Rowling, American singer Lana Del Rey, and British actress Jodie Comer have all recently fallen under the guillotine of the rapidly escalating woke revolution.
Historical figures have not been spared the wrath of the cultural crackdown. The first POTUS, George Washington, Scottish moral philosopher David Hume, and Hans Christian Andersen, the Danish author of “The Little Mermaid” are among some of the latest scalps in the battle to expunge discriminatory sympathies from our cultural heritage.
The sheer rate of cancellations has spooked even the most progressive members of our cultural elite. In response, J.K. Rowling — who has faced fierce criticism for her stance of transgender issues — has teamed up with fellow authors Margaret Atwood, Salman Rushie and 150 other academics and writers to pen an open letter in Harper’s Magazine decrying the cancel culture that has set in in liberal societies.
“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted”, the recently published letter read. The authors express grave concern at the increasing “intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty”.
“The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away”, the letter concludes.
Somewhat predictably, the authors of the letter have themselves been summarily cancelled for their views.
“Any speech meant to attack another person’s existence and human rights is not freedom but oppression”, celebrity US physician Eugene Gu tweeted.
“There is no such thing as pure freedom of expression […]: the expression of some views necessarily encroaches on the dignity and freedom of others”, wrote Guardian columnist Zoe Williams in a response to the letter.
Yet there’s the rub. How can anyone express a view on identity politics without at least implicitly exposing some identities to rational critique? Is rational debate now constrained by the endlessly proliferating identities that members of different social groups wish to assert?
Indeed, we can use the work of one of the co-signatories of the Harper’s letter as a lens through which to analyse the core problem with an aggressive cancel culture. In his 2018 book Identity: the Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, political theorist Francis Fukuyama describes how social groups seeking recognition can easily morph into aggressive movements that seek to dominate other groups in society.
Rather than being content with the same set of basic rights accorded to all members of liberal societies, some social groups seek a special status whereby their identity is not just tolerated but celebrated, with any dissenters facing devastating social censure.
A case in point is the transgender rights movement — the very movement that has recast Rowling, otherwise a champion of progressive ideals, as a shameless bigot. Transgender activists demand that their fluid identities be accorded the same social recognition as traditional binary gender identities. A failure to do so could very well cost someone their career and destroy their standing in polite society.
What started off as an important campaign for respect and social acknowledgement, in other words, has turned into a form of thought-policing and has led to a situation in which any debate is liable to be construed as hate speech.
From the perspective of liberal society, this is deeply troubling, and indicative of a crisis in our capacity for civil disagreement and self-critique.
Fukuyama argues that liberal societies need to negotiate the tensions between competing ideologies and identities by facilitating respectful intellectual debate and by fostering a willingness to at least tolerate critique of some of our self-identifying beliefs.
One glance at the Twittersphere, however, reveals that this liberal vision is far from being realised.
Fukuyama once suggested that liberal democracy signaled the end of history. Does cancel culture signal the end of rational debate?
Xavier Symons is a bioethicist at the University of Notre Dame and a 2020 Fulbright Future Postdoctoral Scholar. More by Xavier Symons
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2020-07-15 05:21:082020-07-15 05:21:57‘Cancel culture’ is a symptom of a deeper crisis in liberal societies
Activists continue to call for defunded police departments during weeks of protests following the death of George Floyd. At the same time, the police are facing a spike in violent crime in several cities across the nation, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Milwaukee is set to break the record of 167 homicides that were reported in 1991 when serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was free. Homicides in Chicago are nearing the record-high numbers from 2016, which was the highest homicide rate since 1996. Kansas City, Missouri, had 99 homicides during the first 6 months of this year, more than that same period in any previous year, the Wall Street Journal reported. Homicides are up 23% in New York and 11.6% in Los Angeles, both of which had seen falling homicide rates in previous years.
Meanwhile, the idea of defunding the police has continued to gain traction. The Minneapolis City Council unanimously voted to dismantle their police department last month, and the Oakland School Board followed suit, voting to ban police from their California schools.
Major cities, including New York and Los Angeles, have passed massive budget cuts for the police departments. New York City Officials cut $1 billion from the NYPD June 30, and the next day, the Los Angeles City Council cut $150 million from their police budget.
Some officers said that cities are cutting police budgets without a plan in place to reallocate the money to allow the department to do its job. “You don’t tear down the building you’re living in until you have a new building to move into,” said Art Acevedo, Houston police chief and head of the Major Cities Chiefs Association.
Milwaukee Police Chief Alfonso Morales called the timing of coronavirus, massive unemployment and nationwide protests a “perfect storm,” the Wall Street Journal reported.
The coronavirus pandemic also led to budget cuts for police departments and worsened public relations by making community outreach difficult, experts said.
“We had a series of events that many of us probably never experienced in our time,” Morales noted.
Others have said being a police officer today is more dangerous. Former New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly said “what you see is a backing away.”
Many departments are worried about officers retiring early as morale has suffered within departments. The “Blu Flu” in Atlanta made headlines last month after police officers called out sick or didn’t show up for their shift after one of their fellow officers was charged with felony murder for the death of Rayshard Brooks. A video showed Brooks resisting arrest before grabbing the officer’s taser, which he was attempting to run away with when he was shot.
The Atlanta Police Department said in a June 17 tweet that “the department is experiencing a higher than usual number of call outs with the incoming shift. We have enough resources to maintain operations & remain able to respond to incidents.”
Earlier suggestions that multiple officers from each zone had walked off the job were inaccurate. The department is experiencing a higher than usual number of call outs with the incoming shift. We have enough resources to maintain operations & remain able to respond to incidents.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2020-07-14 06:26:232020-07-14 07:20:52Activists Call For Defunding The Police As Violent Crime Surges Across The Nation
The city of Seattle recently summoned its white employees (white employees only) and essentially told them, “Your skin color is a crime,” according to a report by Tucker Carlson.
In a truly extremist (and Orwellian) perversion of anti-racism training, the meeting was officially called “Interrupting Internalized Racial Superiority and Whiteness.”
According to a public records request filed by City Journal reporter Chris Rufo and detailed in the video below by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, “White employees were told that their white qualities were offensive and unacceptable. Those qualities included perfectionism, objectivity and individualism.”
They were further told to drop those qualities and undertake “the work of undoing your own whiteness.”
The employees were further ordered to give up, among other things:
Spending time with their families
Guaranteed physical safety
Relationships with other white people
Niceties from neighbors and colleagues
The certainty of their job
Watch the clip where Carlson explains what happened in the meeting:
As the U.S. woke narrative spins out of control, Carlson and many others have repeatedly pointed out that the quintessential definition of racism is judging a person by a quality they have no control over, like the color of their skin.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2020-07-13 07:42:262020-07-13 07:42:26Seattle to White Employees: ‘Your Skin Color Is a Crime’ [Video]
Polling on racial relations turned historically negative during President Barack Obama’s final year in office due in part to the blossoming of the Black Lives Matter movement after the police shootings of two black men. Now, Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, is running for president as a unifier on race.
Americans’ view on race during President Donald Trump’s first three years in office were good relative to Obama’s final year in office, with polls showing public satisfaction on race issues increasing dramatically in 2018.
Views on race relations turned overwhelmingly negative during the final year of Trump’s first term after the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in May after a white police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly 9 minutes.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is billing himself as the person who can ease race relations and unify the nation as part of his 2020 presidential bid. But race relations plummeted while the presumptive Democratic nominee served under President Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president in history.
Biden supported demonstrations in May and June against the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after a white police officer knelt on his neck for nearly 9 minutes, video of the incident shows. He met with Floyd’s family after the tragedy and wrote in a June 10 tweet that he’s ready to get to work on “day one” to tackle racism.
The former vice president stayed on message that month and promised to “heal the racial wounds that have long plagued our country.”
“This is a battle for the soul of America,” Biden said at an economic roundtable in June. “Who are we? What do we want to be? How do we see ourselves? What do we think we should be? Character is on the ballot here.”
But last time Biden was in the White House, when he was serving as vice president, race relations in the U.S. took a nose dive.
Race Relations During The Obama Era
Americans held a positive view on race relations during the first half of Obama’s administration, with more than 52% of voters telling pollsters in 2008 that the former president’s victory would lead to better race relations, a Pew Research poll published in November 2008 showed. Only 9% thought race relations would get worse.
But polling on racial relations turned overwhelmingly negative during the last half of Obama’s administration. Nearly 70% of Americans said in July 2016 that race relations were bad, a level not seen since the 1992 riots in Los Angeles during the Rodney King case, a New York Times/CBS News poll published that month and year show.
The poll found that six in 10 American voters said race relations were growing worse, up from 2015, when 38% 0f people expressed a similar view.
The downward trajectory coincided with the blossoming of the Black Lives Matter movement, which began in 2013 after videos were made public showing the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile at the hands of the police. They were killed over the course of two days that year.
Five police officers were shot and killed in Dallas by a black Army veteran the day after the Sterling and Castile deaths.
Obama told audience members at the police officers’ memorial service on July 11, 2016 that, “we are not as divided as we seem,”
“We cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid,” Obama said.
He added: “We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and co-workers and fellow church members again and again and again — it hurts.”
Obama’s pleas didn’t do much to change perceptions.
The July 2016 NYT poll showed a stark difference in how white and black people see race. Three-quarters of black people said police are more likely to use deadly force on an African American over a white person, the poll showed. Only 18% of black people argued that the color of the person made no difference.
Race Relations During Trump’s Term
Satisfaction with race relations jumped during Trump’s first three years in office.
A Gallup survey conducted in January 2020, for instance, recorded a double-digit increase (14 percentage points) in public satisfaction with the state of race relations in the country. Only 22% of people held a satisfactory view on race at the end of the Obama-era, with that number jumping to 36% in January, Gallop’s survey showed.
Satisfaction also increased between six and nine points regarding the position of black people and other racial minorities in January, according to the Gallup poll. Trump and White House officials cited the historic low black unemployment rate for reasons why attitudes on race were in positive territory at that time.
Black unemployment reached a record low during the first two years of the Trump administration, with only 5.9% claiming unemployment in May 2018. Yet the biggest drop came under Obama, when the unemployment rate for black people fell from 16.8% in March 2010 to just 7.8% in January 2017, AP reported in 2019.
Poll numbers on race relations plummeted shortly after Floyd’s death, which sparked nationwide demonstrations and calls for city and state officials to defund the police. Biden does not endorse an outright campaign to defund the police but does support a move to redirect police funding to address mental health.
Following Floyd’s death, most Americans now argue that race relations in the U.S. are bad, including a majority of both black and white people, according to a CBS poll conducted in June. Roughly 61% of Americans believe that the state of race relations in the U.S. today are generally bad compared to 35% who say they are good, the poll notes.
Trump’s poll numbers are similarly dropping.
More than 67% of voters disapprove of the president’s “oversight” on the coronavirus pandemic, according to a July 11 poll conducted by The Guardian. The same percentage said they disapproved of the president’s response to recent racial unrest.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2020-07-13 05:39:292020-07-13 05:39:29Race Relations Plummeted While Joe Biden Was Vice President Under Barack Obama
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2020-07-12 07:59:122020-07-13 07:48:42TWO POWERFUL VIDEOS: We Will Defend America Against Violent Anarchists and Biden ‘Unfit To Lead’
It’s a fine thing to be a member of not one, not two, but three protected victim classes: that most ardent of patriots, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Jihad), has now directly violated the oath of office she took when she became a member of the House of Representatives, but because she is so multiply victimized, nothing will be done.
It all happened Tuesday, when the Left’s brightest young star said that her colleagues’ latest treasonous cause, defunding the police, would not be enough: “We can’t stop at criminal justice reform or policing reform for that matter. We are not merely fighting to tear down the systems of oppression in the criminal justice system, we are fighting to tear down systems of oppression that exist in housing, in education, in health care, in employment, in the air we breathe.”
Those “systems of oppression” that need to be torn down, in her sage view, include “our economy and political system.” Omar continued: “We must recognize that these systems of oppression are linked. As long as our economy and political system prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality. So we cannot stop at criminal justice, we must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.”
The “whole system of oppression.” All right. But that is not exactly what Rep. Omar promised to be about when she became an officer of the United States government. Here is the oath Ilhan Omar took when she became a member of the U.S. House of Representatives: “I, Ilhan Omar, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
This is a quite clear-cut case. Calling for the “dismantling” of the “political system” is the direct opposite of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In a sane Congress, she would be expelled. The Constitution says: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member” (Art. I section 5)…..
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2020-07-12 07:05:302020-07-12 07:07:24Ilhan Omar Should Be Expelled from House for Threatening to ‘Tear Down’ Our Political System, But Won’t Be
After posting earlier yesterday about being prepared!, last night I spent a largely unsuccessful hour searching for solar flood lighting with a motion sensor. It needs to be bright, stay on for awhile, easy to put up, and here is the clincher for my husband—it cannot be made in China.
I’ll be back to my search again today. However, in frustration, I figured a better use of my time might be to check my hundreds of e-mails that I’ve ignored for over a week; and what did one regular follower send—bingo! an article showing the value of having good lighting on your property!
I’ve snipped some of Mel’s personal story, but please go to the link and read it all.
Last Sunday morning very early (before 6am), my wife and I was sitting on the back patio having our morning coffee as we do every morning…and suddenly we hear the Sheriff’s Dept. Helicopter flying above our home, circling about a 4 block square area…VERY LOW…like just barely above the trees. (This is EXTREMELY RARE for our neighborhood!)
As I watched our surveillance cameras monitor, we saw 3 to 5 Sheriff’s cars flying down our street.
We live in a very “bedroom community” type older subdivision with most homes on 1/2 to 1 acre lots…little if any crime and even then its usually just a domestic squabble at one of the rental houses.
The Sheriff’s helicopter presence in the neighborhood went on for almost an hour until I had a couple deputies knock on our door just as it became daylight. They came to ask to review our cameras (we live on a larger corner lot and have 10 surveillance cameras that view a large area of our main street into the subdivision and a side street).
The Deputy said they were looking for a brown or tan pick-up truck coming or going.
As I reviewed the video, the Deputy said there was 3 home invasions done within the 2-4 block areas of our home.
Said it appeared the criminals were scoping out homes to hit as they picked ones with elderly residents, no outside lighting, no cameras, no vehicles or just 1 vehicle in driveway and no signs of dogs at the home. He said our house would be an unlikely target BECAUSE we have heavy lighting around the entire house (motion detected spot lights on all 4 corners and a dusk to dawn commercial street light on pole in front yard, along with the several surveillance cameras and the multiple signage stating trained protection Dobermans on premises,“Do Not Enter Without Owner Present”! (We also have 5 vehicles parked in driveway even though there are only 3 drivers here).
Yesterday morning we were visited by a County Detective with our Sheriff’s Dept. and two F.B.I. Agents. They requested to view the videos live from my sysyem and asked how far back does my system retain video…I told them all of the cameras keep the recordings on our DVR for 10 days before they start over-recording…BUT, our camera supplier has a 60 day retainment kept in their company’s “cloud” (this was one of the reasons I chose them).
To put this in perspective…our town is just across the river/lake from Sanford FL…where all of the race baiting BS started with the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin fiasco and Obama’s famous race card comment “If I Had A Son, He Would Have Been Trayvon!”
The Detective told us that those described cars were occupied by 8 to 10 blacks (both males and females) associated with a known gang…and I made comment “Who, BLM?”…and he just kind of stared at me…(I didn’t realize how true this was until later).
It is commonly known in our area that most of the crime committed at our businesses and in the next town commercial districts are committed by both black and whites who associate themselves with BLM and who come from the areas west of us…Sanford, Orlando and its County of Orange Co.
He said the 3 homes they had hit was 1 that was just 4 houses up the street from ours (this confirmed previous neighborhood gossip). That home is owned by an elderly White lady who was widowed about 3 years ago and lives alone with a few cats. They only terrorized her and shoved her a couple of times…but she will be okay…thank God! They ransacked her home and stole some jewelry, electronics and a couple of old guns.
Now here is the REAL CLINCHER!!!
I asked the Detective why we hadn’t seen anything on the news about this…and UNBELIEVABLE…he says because of the volatile racial environment right now in our country…ALL of these type crimes are on a MANDATORY MEDIA BLACKOUT!The Police and Feds are not to inform the media, use special frequency radio communications during the investigation and to downplay any questioning of what took place by the news people. SAY WHAT?
Later when it was just the Detective and I, I asked him if they WERE BLM members and if so, how they associated them with BLM and he said the trucks female driver is a well known activist for them and one of the original promoters of them. She has a long criminal record and from the Detectives comments, is VERY WELL KNOWN by the authorities. Because of this is why the FBI was now involved. (The FBI agents never said anything to me the whole time they were here, except greeting and saying who they were.)
And as a NOTE to this incident…As you can see…heavy lighting around your home, several cars in driveway showing probably several people inside, Beware of Dog(s) signs and multiple and visible surveillance cameras surrounding your property are THE BEST “PREVENTION” against becoming a victim…and probably MORE IMPORTANT than any firearm(s) you may have inside!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2020-07-11 06:37:172020-07-11 06:45:48When “It” Comes to Your Neighborhood!
Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists have been attacking churchgoers at the Grace Baptist Church in Troy, New York since the end of June. Reports surfaced that the group was triggered by the church’s gun giveaway.
Why is the mob beating church members in Troy, NY for trying to enter church and escort black members through the mob?
While the right-leaning media put the spotlight on BLM with headlines describing “Godless” BLM supporters as having “stormed” the Grace Baptist Church, overwhelming young women and children, the truth is, this is a story of two extremist movements — which, of course, does not excuse the reprehensible and violent behavior of the BLM protesters.
Just for the record, here’s the backstory of the church and its pastor:
First the gun giveaway (which isn’t the totality of this story): At first it might seem bizarre for a church to host a gun giveaway, even though the church had twice before given away AR-15 rifles, once in 2014 and again in 2017 in response to New York’s SAFE Act — a 2013 gun regulation law. (Winners had to successfully pass a background check. The event garnered the attention of local politicians, with at least two supporting it: New York State Assemblyman John McDonald of the 108th District and Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin who represents the district itself).
This latest gun giveaway was advertised on the church’s website, which also stated that to qualify for the giveaway, one must be present at the church and,
“As always, there will be a slice of ham (the Bible word is swine) outside the front church doors. Everyone entering the building for the service is required to touch the ham before entering the building. Anyone refusing to touch the ham outside the front church doors is not permitted to enter the building. GBC reserves the right to allow any Orthodox or Hasidic Jew to enter without touching the ham.”
We can surmise that the “ham test” is to make sure there aren’t any Muslims entering the church. This is consistent with the the ideology of the leader of the church, Pastor John Koletas, who is known for preaching that “Every Muslim is a Terrorist.” What is seemingly inconsistent with Koletas’ ideology is why he would let Jews in, since he also preaches that “Jews have ruined America” and “Jews Are Cursed”:
Most news outlets covering this story focused on the Black Lives Matter protesters attacking churchgoers; local New York news focused on the church gun giveaway as a trigger for those protests. Unreported was the fact that other protesters were initially across the street before BLM organizers arrived at the church.
Yet, the bigoted rhetoric of Pastor John Koletas has largely gone unreported. While harassing churchgoers is totally unacceptable, so is being a vile bigot with a pulpit.
For more on Pastor John Koletas, below is a shocking interview where his daughter tells the story of how Koletas came to his extremist views and how his family excused him for them:
Two hundred and forty-four years after the 13 British colonies in North America declared their independence and became a sovereign nation, America is poised to collapse from within. Her imminent demise will not come from foreign troops quartered on her soil. It will come from Marxists and anarchists who use racial grievance and the cries of the oppressed to dismantle America’s institutions and defenses.
Insurrection labeled as “peaceful protest” is the battering ram weakening our nation’s foundations. Using the voices of the oppressed and deceived masses, and their bodies and legitimate grievances as shields, is part of a deliberate plan to bring about a new order guaranteed to be worse than what exists now.
We are at a historical moment where America’s institutions of higher education, many of them founded and led by Christian leaders, have rejected their Founders and become transmission belts for socialism and Marxist propaganda.
Using concepts such as “white privilege” and “systemic racism,” these social justice warriors have inverted traditional concepts of equality, justice, and freedom as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>
These foundational documents provided the institutional mechanisms for positive change that in time came through the passage of ground-breaking civil rights laws and protections—since expanded to include affirmative action designed to address and remedy the effects of past and present discrimination.
More is demanded because America’s enemies understand the heart and soul of its people. The current racial narrative that focuses on “white supremacy” is a distorted narrative aimed at achieving goals that are neither desirable nor attainable. Government cannot fix the individual choices people make that cause some to prosper and others to languish in generational poverty.
The false narratives about America’s racial evils conveniently omit the actions of Christian and Jews who worked tirelessly over the last two-plus centuries to bring about justice for the downtrodden.
Jewish and Christian men and women, often working through their congregations, risked everything to fight against the evils of slavery and to empower newly freed slaves and hardworking freedmen. As a result, many of those helped with a hand up went on to establish businesses and attain educations that enabled them to become valued and productive citizens.
The current agitation for defunding police departments on top of demanded reparations ignore basic facts of history. Chaos ensues in the absence of law enforcement, and any monetary benefits from reparations to the descendants of slaves comes on top of the trillions of dollars already spent on programs and scholarships that have helped many blacks to thrive in America.
The current racial narrative uses the oppressor/victim rhetoric to make a new class of victims among white people who are supposed to feel shame because of their race and ancestry. This is being accomplished through the brainwashing of America’s youth and the silencing of white adults who know better.
There is a disregard for the individuality and struggles for millions of white Americans who bear no responsibility either for the sins of their ancestors or the choices of other groups.
As a nation we best return to the pursuit of life, liberty, and justice as core principles and non-negotiable human rights. We are at a moment where our nation is at the mercy of domestic extortionists. They have usurped power from impotent leaders no longer willing to fight for principles higher than themselves. Love of God and country have yielded to love of self.
All this has left our nation teetering on the edge of a precipice. I believe we have a small window of time to reclaim our core values and principles. Reclaiming what made America unique among nations will require educating young and old about national history and its Judeo-Christian roots. It will also require civic knowledge and a return to patriotism. It is the American national identity that will hold us together, not the divisive tribalism fostered by identity politics.
If we are to survive this moment of massive unrest, men and women of goodwill must step up to build on what our nation’s Founders left behind. Building will require a rediscovery of our founding documents and the biblical principles that emphasize loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. The Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you applies.
Our greatest universal strength lies in our written Constitution, which provides the basis for the rule of law. It is time for our leaders of all races to defend the document that has stood the test of time.
Under our system of government, the power rests in the hands of the people. It is “We the People” addressed in the preamble of our great Constitution who must stand up; it is “Be the People” who will reclaim their nation and its Judeo-Christian heritage and what that has meant to the world.
This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2020-07-10 05:11:102020-07-11 06:24:59America Is Poised to Collapse From Within
Back in the 1960 presidential election, pitting John F. Kennedy against Richard M. Nixon, JFK won by an eyelash. Had it not been for some critical votes produced at the last minute in Chicago (home to Mayor Richard J. Daley (D)) and Texas (home to VP candidate Lyndon B. Johnson (D)), the election could have easily gone to Richard Nixon. Later, ballots were identified bearing the names of people who were deceased, which became legendary in terms of voter fraud. The election results in Illinois and Texas were going to be challenged by the Republicans, but Nixon didn’t want to put the country through a Constitutional crisis and bowed out.
Voter Fraud is a dirty business and, unfortunately, we have been plagued by it for several years. To assume it doesn’t exist is laughable as there is too much evidence of it. More on this in just a moment.
Over the years, the Democrats have tried a variety of things to garner more votes, such as lowering the voting age to 16 or 17. Frankly, I think it should be raised to 21 as the maturity for politics is simply not there at such an early age. Next, Dems propose allowing illegal immigrants to vote, something that is normally reserved for registered citizens. There has also been the bugaboo over Voter ID, implying those who have been unable to obtain proper identification are being ostracized. This, of course, is utter nonsense. And now we hear of accepting write-in ballots without voter verification. This would allow any Tom, Dick, or Harry to stuff the ballot box, not to mention foreign governments. However, you have to hand it to the Democrats on their tenacity. They cannot win legally so they make no bones about winning any way they can.
As another example of their wanting to rig voting, consider the recent passage in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives to make Washington, DC the 51st state of the Union. By doing so, the Dems hope to get two more Senate seats and one more House seat.
Our founding fathers never intended for the area to become a state, but a nonpartisan district from which to maintain the government. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, the “District Clause,” it states: “[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.” In other words, Congress is to oversee the running of the District.
Further, the District of Columbia is physically small, a meager 61.05 square miles. Compare this to tiny Rhode Island, our smallest state, which is a whopping 1,988.5% bigger (1,214 square miles).
Fortunately, this legislation will be Dead on Arrival in the Senate, but it illustrates the lengths the Democrats are willing to go to get their way. To make matters worse, people like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) like to play the race card, saying recently, “race underlies every argument against D.C. statehood.” This is sheer tripe.
Making matters worse, Democrats have been resisting the cleansing of voter rolls, to eliminate people who are deceased, have moved, or are registered multiple times in different counties or states, thereby offering them the ability to enter multiple votes.
Interestingly, the data base reveals 37 instances of voter fraud here in Florida since 1992. My old home state of Ohio shows 52 instances since 2000. The findings are impressive and I encourage people to check it out.
According to the Heritage Foundation report, here are the various types of Voter Fraud:
Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots
Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.
Ineligible Voting Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, are convicted felons, or are otherwise not eligible to vote.
Impersonation Fraud At The Polls Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, or lost their right to vote because they are felons, but remain registered.
Buying Votes Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate.
Ballot Petition Fraud Forging the signatures of registered voters on the ballot petitions that must be filed with election officials in some states for a candidate or issue to be listed on the official ballot.
Duplicate Voting Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.
False Registrations Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.
Altering The Vote Count Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.
Illegal ‘Assistance’ At The Polls Forcing or intimidating voters—particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language—to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with ‘assistance.’”
There is little doubt we will see all of these types employed during the 2020 election, with possibly some new twists thrown in. This list represents crimes which carry jail terms and/or fines, but I would also rescind their right to vote as well.
Even now, we are seeing symptoms of Voter Fraud being rigged with the commercial polls which are trending in favor of former VP Joe Biden. These are the same polls which predicted a Hillary Clinton landslide in 2016 by double digits. I have researched the polls and recognize they are either operated by Democrats or they do not know how to conduct an accurate poll with registered voters. Again, as in 2016, they want the public to believe there is a tsunami of support heading Mr. Biden’s way. All of this would be funny if it wasn’t so scary how the polls are rigged. Actually, the “Fake News” is behind the polls and, as such, have sensationalized them to the point of making them totally worthless.
For years, I voted using punch cards which I found simple and efficient for voting. Then we experienced the “hanging chad” snafu of the 2000 election, something I still contend was a fabricated problem. Now we have a voting system that appears to be prone to error and outside manipulation, even in spite of the available technology of today. Frankly, I am ready to go back to old-fashioned paper ballots and pencils, along with a valid Voter ID card; anything to make the 2020 election honest and fair, but that is not how the Democrats want it as their mantra is “win at all costs, even if it is illegal.”
Just remember, “Voting without a valid Voter ID card is like allowing someone to drive on our streets without a valid driver’s license or tags.” It is just not right.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Tim Brycehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTim Bryce2020-07-09 06:52:512020-07-09 06:52:51PODCAST: Voter Fraud is Dirty Business
Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar called for the “dismantling” of the U.S. economy and political system Tuesday.
“As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality,” Omar said. “We cannot stop at criminal justice system. We must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.”
Ilhan Omar calls for "dismantling" of the U.S. "economy and political systems." In case it wasn't clear. pic.twitter.com/B8DJdQvSxB
Omar held an event Tuesday in her home state of Minnesota with members of the Minnesota People of Color and Indigenous Caucus. Omar tweeted earlier Tuesday that the purpose of the event was to address “racism in policing” in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death.
The murder of George Floyd reawakened calls to address racism in policing and reform our criminal justice system.
I’m live with leaders of the Minnesota People of Color and Indigenous Caucus to discuss our work to make systemic changes on Facebook now: https://t.co/14DTGnadcT
Omar has joined calls from local Democratic leaders to defund the police after four Minneapolis police officers were fired and charged in connection to Floyd’s death. The Minneapolis City Council unanimously voted to get rid of the city’s police department in June.
Omar said she supported the vote because she believes the Minneapolis Police Department is beyond reform.
“You can’t really reform a department that is rotten to the root,” Omar said at the time. “What you can do is rebuild. And so this is our opportunity, you know, as a city to come together, have the conversation of what public safety looks like, who enforces the most dangerous crimes that take place in our community.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2020-07-08 07:15:512020-07-08 07:22:52Ilhan Omar Calls For The ‘Dismantling’ Of U.S. Economy, Political System
H.R. 5383, the “New Way Forward Act”, which has 44 cosponsors, would effectively eviscerate immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior of the United States.
It would all but eliminate detention for immigration purposes, and impose new burdens on our already overtaxed immigration courts.
It would place onerous restrictions on ICE officers and Border Patrol agents in making immigration arrests — including in desolate areas of the border in the middle of the night.
It would require those officers and agents to justify every arrest of an alien without a warrant before an immigration judge, straining to the point of elimination DHS’s limited immigration-enforcement resources.
It would create a “statute of limitations” of five years for the commencement of removal proceedings based on even the most serious criminal offenses.
It would limit the criminal grounds of removal so significantly that only the most extreme offenses would render criminal aliens removable, and would also expand the relief available to the few aliens who would still be removable on criminal grounds.
It would make the amendments to the criminal grounds of removal and relief retroactive, so that even criminal aliens who have been removed from the United States, but who would not have been removable had that law been in effect, could apply to have their cases reopened or reconsidered. Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals would have no discretion not to reopen or reconsider those cases.
It would require DHS to pay to fly those criminal aliens who have been removed and who would be eligible for reopening or reconsideration thereunder back to the United States — which would result in dangerous criminal aliens being returned at taxpayer expense back to this country to commit more crimes.
It would prevent state and local law enforcement from assisting ICE and CBP in immigration enforcement in any way, and bar the inclusion of immigration-related information into the NCIC database or its incorporated criminal history databases. This would essentially make every jurisdiction in the United States a “sanctuary jurisdiction”. As a result, ICE officers would have to risk their own safety and the safety of the community as a whole to arrest dangerous criminal aliens at their homes or in public places.
It would repeal the criminal grounds of illegal entry and reentry into the United States, encouraging fraud, enriching smugglers, traffickers, and criminal cartels, and endangering the national security and the community.
On December 10, 2019, Rep. Jesus Garcia (D-Ill.) introduced H.R. 5383, the “New Way Forward Act”, which now has 44 cosponsors.1 It is a roadmap for Democrats’ plans to hobble immigration enforcement if they ever regain control of the White House and Congress, introduced by representatives who apparently believe that the current immigration laws are too harsh on criminal aliens in the United States, that immigration enforcement in the interior is currently too effective, and that there are not enough criminals in this country already. Regrettably, I am not exaggerating.
Detention is a key tool for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its enforcement of the immigration laws, not just in the interior, but also in assisting U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in enforcing those laws at the border.
As civil-rights icon Barbara Jordan, then-chairwoman of President Clinton’s Commission on Immigration Reform, testified in February 1995: “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.”2 By this standard, the current immigration-enforcement effort is a failure, and a lack of detention space is a main cause of that failure.
In its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) report for FY 2019, ICE revealed that at the end of the fiscal year, there were 595,430 fugitive aliens in the United States; that is, aliens who have “failed to leave the United States based upon a final order of removal, deportation or exclusion, or who have failed to report to ICE after receiving notice to do so” — up more than 50,000 cases from just two years before.3 Those were aliens who had never been in custody or who had been released — either on parole, bond, or their own recognizance — who had received due process, were ordered removed, and who failed to leave.
Not that this should be a surprise. Aliens who enter the United States illegally, or who overstay their visas, do so to live and (generally) work in the United States, (generally) indefinitely. They literally have no incentive to leave the United States if they are not detained and are ordered removed.
As a bipartisan panel of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) found in an April 2019 report: “Even if the asylum hearing and appeals ultimately go against the migrant, he or she still has the practical option of simply remaining in the U.S. illegally, where the odds of being caught and removed remain very low.”4 How low? In FY 2019, the ICE ERO report stated that the agency had a non-detained docket of more than 3.2 million cases, and was detaining (at the end of FY 2019) 50,922 aliens, most (63 percent) of whom were recent apprehensions at the border.5 If you are an alien on ICE’s docket, your odds of being detained are just less than one in 63.
In contrast, due to the surge of aliens at the border in FY 2019, the agency only removed just over 143,000 aliens last year — 86 percent of whom had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges — down from 158,851 the year before. At that rate, it will take ICE more than four years to remove all of the alien absconders in the United States — assuming that every alien ordered subsequently removed during that period leaves voluntarily (which, as noted, they won’t).
H.R. 5383 would make ICE’s efforts to enforce the laws in the interior and at the border next to impossible by ending mandatory detention for terrorist and criminal aliens (more on that later), creating a “rebuttable presumption that the alien should be released from custody” (which places an impossible burden on ICE attorneys, who represent the government in bond proceedings), and requiring that the “least restrictive conditions” of detention and supervision be imposed on aliens (including criminal aliens) in removal proceedings and under removal orders.
Further, it requires immigration judges (IJs) to review those conditions “on a monthly basis”, imposing a significant burden on already strained immigration court dockets (the nation’s 466 IJs were handling 1,066,563 cases as of December 31, 2019 — 2,289 cases per IJ).6
That bill would also shorten the time that ICE may detain an alien under a final order from 90 days to 60 days,7 which would require the release of large numbers of aliens from so-called “recalcitrant countries”8 — those “that systematically refuse or delay the repatriation of their citizens.” In addition, H.R. 5383 would provide those aliens with a mechanism to seek release during even that shortened period (those aliens, and in particular aliens removable on terrorist and criminal grounds, are currently subject to mandatory detention).
Restrictions on Immigration Arrests
Not only would the bill add those restrictions to ICE’s detention of aliens, it would also impose significant burdens on that agency and CBP to simply arrest aliens.
Current law (logically) gives DHS officers significant latitude in questioning aliens or suspected aliens, and in arresting (without a warrant) aliens who are entering the United States illegally, as well as aliens who the officer believes are in this country illegally and who are likely to escape before the officer can obtain a warrant.9 The only restriction on this authority is that the alien must be presented “without unnecessary delay” to an officer for questioning as to that alien’s “right to enter or remain in” this country.
H.R. 5383 would place incredible impediments on both the authority of DHS officers to question aliens, and on those officers’ authority to arrest.
Specifically, under that bill, ICE officers could not interrogate any alien if that interrogation is “based on the person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, color, spoken language, or English proficiency.”
It has been my experience that ICE officers generally question suspected aliens based upon a “totality of the circumstances”, which may include some of the factors above (I am unaware of any arrest that has ever been premised in whole or in part on religion or sexual orientation), but also other, additional factors that would indicate that the individual is a removable alien.10 If you have ever been to the border, for example, race, ethnicity, color, and English proficiency in and of themselves would not suggest that an individual is a removable alien, but they may be if the individual is in the back of a trailer that fled from an interior checkpoint.11
Categorically removing these factors from that “totality of the circumstances” analysis would make the task facing ICE officers who suspect an individual of being a removable alien next to impossible, short of the alien blurting out that he or she is in such a status. The restrictions imposed by H.R. 5383 would give even removable aliens no shortage of avenues for escaping (metaphorically) removal by asserting that an “improper” factor was considered. ICE officers would spend all day in immigration court defending the few arrests that they are able to make at “probable cause” hearings — which are also mandated by the bill, within 48 hours of the alien’s arrest without warrant, as explained below.
If the impediments on ICE officers in the interior are burdensome, the ones on Border Patrol agents are downright bizarre and ill-informed.
Specifically, under the bill, those agents could only arrest aliens whom they see entering the United States illegally if: they have probable cause to believe that the alien is in this country in violation of law and “is likely to escape before” the agent can obtain an arrest warrant; if the agent “has reason to believe” that the alien “would knowingly and willfully fail to appear in immigration court” pursuant to a Notice to Appear (“NTA”, the charging document in removal proceedings); and if the alien is presented before an IJ within 48 hours of arrest “to determine whether there is probable cause as” required therein, “including probable cause to believe that” the alien “would have knowingly and willfully failed to appear” — a hearing at which the government would bear the burden of proof.
This provision shows an almost complete lack of understanding as to how the Border Patrol does its job. Aliens are often apprehended in remote portions of the border, far away from Border Patrol stations — making it next to impossible for agents to drive hours to obtain a warrant of arrest. In addition, it is difficult to imagine how an agent could make a determination in the middle of the night whether any given alien (who had entered illegally) would appear before an IJ.
The probable-cause hearing requirement, again, would pull a significant number of Border Patrol agents off of the line almost daily to travel to far-away immigration courts to explain why they made numerous and sundry arrests.
To explain: As of January 2019, CBP employed roughly 20,000 Border Patrol agents,12 most of whom are assigned to the Southwest border, which is about 1,954 miles long.13 Those agents work 50-hour shifts per week, meaning that at any given time (assuming there are 18,000 agents along the border with Mexico) there are approximately 5,357 agents at that border. If CBP had to pull hundreds of them off of the line at any given time, it would create a vacuum that would be exploited by smugglers and traffickers, who would move migrants, drugs, and contraband through the places where agents aren’t stationed.
Of course, immigration courts are not 24-hour-a-day affairs, so it is unclear how, exactly, an alien apprehended on a Friday could be presented before an IJ 48 hours later on Sunday (or Saturday, for that matter).
This provision would essentially require Border Patrol agents to issue NTAs to all aliens apprehended entering illegally in lieu of arresting those aliens. This would, in turn, encourage massive numbers of aliens to enter the United States illegally, overwhelming limited DHS resources even more.
It would also prevent Border Patrol from identifying wanted criminals, gang members, traffickers, and even terrorists in that flood of migrants over the border. Notably, the April report from the bipartisan HSAC panel (referenced above) specifically stated: “By far, the major ‘pull factor’ [driving family units to the Southwest border] is the current practice of releasing with a NTA most illegal migrants who bring a child with them.”14 The bill would exacerbate that problem exponentially, and expand this loophole to single adults entering illegally.
Statute of Limitations on Removal Proceedings for Criminal Aliens
The bill would also create a “statute of limitations” for removal proceedings, requiring that ICE place any alien charged with a criminal-based ground of removability into proceedings within five years of the alien becoming amenable to removal (usually, the date of conviction). Often, ICE is unable to locate aliens who have criminal convictions right away, or fails to realize that an individual with a conviction is an alien for several years.
This provision would give those aliens not a “get out of jail free card,” but rather a “remain in the United States unremovable” card. And, it would do so retroactively, so criminal aliens who were placed into removal proceedings more than five years after their convictions, and subsequently ordered removed, would no longer be removable — regardless of the severity of their criminal offenses.
And, as I will explain below, it would also allow those criminal aliens who have been removed to have their cases reopened and terminated, and to be returned to the United States at taxpayers’ expense.
Limitation on Criminal Removal Grounds
H.R. 5383 would also eviscerate the criminal grounds of inadmissibility15 and deportability under a provision specifically titled “Limit Criminal-System-to-Removal Pipeline” (suggesting that the authors do not want a “pipeline” between prisons and removal for dangerous criminal aliens).
It would eliminate removability for aliens convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), which are generally characterized as crimes of vileness, baseness, or depravity, as well as crimes that violate moral standards (malum in se, as we say in the law, “wrong in itself” by its very nature).16 Included on this list are crimes that involve fraud, bribery, sex-related offenses (including solicitation of prostitution and incest), willful infliction of injury to a spouse, theft, robbery, knowing possession of child pornography, and communication with a minor for immoral purposes — to name a few. Significantly, aliens convicted of these offenses would not only no longer be deportable if they were here, they would no longer be inadmissible to the United States if they are not.
In addition, the bill would eliminate removability for criminal violations relating to controlled substances other than drug-trafficking offenses (with a significant caveat relating to deportability based on a conviction for an aggravated felony, below), again meaning that applicants for admission would not be barred from entering the United States as a result of such convictions.
H.R. 5383 would also significantly narrow the definition of “aggravated felony” in section 101(a)(43) of the INA, a category of crimes that renders aliens in the United States deportable.17 That list includes murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, illicit trafficking in a controlled substance, illicit trafficking in firearms, crimes of violence, theft and burglary, demand for or receipt of ransom, child pornography, racketeer influenced corrupt organization offenses, peonage, slavery, trafficking in persons, gathering or transmitting national defense information, sabotage, offenses involving fraud or deceit in which the loss was $10,000 or more, alien smuggling, and attempts and conspiracies to commit such offenses (as well as many others — this list is not exhaustive).
Currently, an offense does not need to qualify as a “felony” under state or federal law to qualify as an aggravated felony for purposes of deportability. This recognizes the fact that “immigration” is a federal issue, and that a state’s characterization of an offense as a “misdemeanor” or a “felony” has no effect on how that offense should be treated for purposes of removability.
The bill would redefine the term “aggravated felony” for purposes of the INA as “a felony, for which a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years was imposed.” This is a bad amendment, for at least two reasons.
First, it excludes many offenses that would fall under the federal definition of “felony”, which includes any crime for which the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is a sentence of more than a year.18 Even if you don’t believe that crimes that are not “felonies” should not count as “aggravated felonies” for immigration purposes, crimes with punishments that would qualify as “felonies” under federal law certainly should.
Second, and worse, it would allow many aliens who are currently removable for significant criminal offenses to remain in the United States and commit additional crimes. As my colleague Jessica Vaughan19 noted in 2011 in summarizing a Government Accountability Office report on alien incarcerations, arrests, and costs: “The average incarcerated alien had seven arrests, and committed an average of 12 offenses.”20 Simply put, criminals commit crimes, and convicted criminals usually commit numerous ones.
While the aggravated felonies listed above are serious offenses, as a result of plea bargains or the misguided efforts of lenient sentencing judges, the sentences for those offenses can be relatively light. This is especially true in cases involving rape and sexual abuse of a minor, where prosecutors may attempt to protect the victim from having to testify by striking a deal with the defendant.
H.R. 5383 would shelter the criminals convicted of those offenses from removability, in essence allowing them to remain in the United States and prey again upon the community, unless they received a term of imprisonment of an arbitrary five years or more.
Restrictions on What Constitutes a “Conviction” for Immigration Purposes
Worse, that bill would significantly trim down the formal findings of criminal guilt that would qualify as a “conviction” for purposes of removability, as well as eligibility for immigration relief in section 101(a)(48) of the INA.21
It is important to note that criminal convictions have two consequences under immigration law. First, they can render an alien inadmissible or removable under sections 212(a)(2)22 and 237(a)(2)23 of the INA, respectively. Second, they can render a removable alien ineligible for relief from removal, such as for asylum (sections 208(b)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) and sections 208(b)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) of the INA),24 cancellation of removal for permanent residents (“42A cancellation”, section 240A(a)(3) of the INA25), and cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents (“42B cancellation”, section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the INA).
H.R. 5383 would amend the definition of “conviction” for purposes of the INA to exclude:
An adjudication or judgment of guilt that has been dismissed, expunged, sealed, deferred, annulled, invalidated, withheld, or vacated, or where a court has issued a judicial recommendation against removal [JRAD], or an order of probation without entry of judgment or any similar disposition.
This amendment would allow a criminal who has been convicted, and sentenced, and who has served time for an offense to avoid removal by going to a sympathetic judge (or overworked prosecutor) to have that conviction dismissed, expunged, sealed, annulled, invalidated, or vacated, without consideration of whether the criminal actually committed that offense.
As Criminal Defense Lawyer explains:
Many states allow you to expunge, seal or otherwise “hide” or “destroy” your criminal record. Generally, if a criminal record is expunged or sealed, it’s as though the crime never occurred and you can legally say (to a potential employer, for example) that you were never charged or convicted of a crime.26
Or, a “potential IJ”. Therefore, an alien who has committed a serious criminal offense can avoid the immigration consequences of his or her actions by going to court, in instances well after the fact, to “hide” or “destroy” their criminal record for immigration purposes.
With respect to JRADs, as my colleague Dan Cadman has explained, while they previously existed in immigration law, Congress expressly repealed that procedure 30 years ago:
Before repeal, a JRAD was binding on immigration authorities, including immigration judges, although it could not be used for certain offenses or where the sentence exceeded a year of imprisonment.
Next let’s note that JRADs were primarily used in cases involving resident aliens in which mitigating factors existed; the JRAD acted to bar deportation and thus left the alien’s legal ability to remain in the United States intact.27
The JRAD proposed in H.R. 5383 would apply to all aliens, not just lawful permanent resident aliens, and would include foreign nationals who have never been to the United States seeking admission. And Congress repealed that relief for good reason, as I have previously stated: “Elimination of that limited authority made it clear that state-court judges had no power to affect the immigration consequences of criminal convictions.”28 (Emphasis added.)
H.R. 5383 would in fact give state-court judges almost unbridled discretion to interfere in the exclusively federal domain of immigration. Further, it would almost definitely lead to disparate and subjective outcomes, as some jurisdictions (and individual judges) would be more lenient and others stricter were it to come to applying these new powers, if they were conveyed by Congress.
Worse (and yes, it gets much, much worse), the bill would repeal a subparagraph in section 101(a)(48) of the INA that explicitly states that:
Any reference to a term of imprisonment or a sentence with respect to an offense is deemed to include the period of incarceration or confinement ordered by a court of law regardless of any suspension of the imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part.29
Instead, under that provision as amended by H.R. 5383, the phrase “term of imprisonment or sentence” for purposes of the INA would include only the “period of incarceration ordered by a court of law”, excluding “confinement” (logically referencing “house arrest”) as well as “any suspension or imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part”. The number of criminal aliens who would escape removal under this amendment is incalculable, but that is only the beginning.
Retroactivity of Amendments
That is because the bill would make these amendments explicitly retroactive, applicable not only to convictions and sentences entered before the date of enactment, but also to “admissions and conduct” occurring before the date of enactment. It would provide a map for criminals seeking through the plea process to avoid removal and reoffend, as often as they wanted, until they ran afoul of what would be left of the criminal grounds of removal. And allow them to reopen cases that had long been closed, even if they had already been deported.
Expansion of the Availability of Relief for Criminal Aliens
And even then criminal aliens could still escape removal, because H.R. 5383 explicitly allows IJs to “grant any relief or deferral of removal … to any individual who is otherwise eligible for such relief but for a prior criminal conviction” so long as the respondent can convince the IJ that “such an exercise of discretion” is “appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.”
That means that you could be sentenced to (and serve) 20 years’ incarceration for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor (or any other aggravated felony), reapply for adjustment of status under section 245 of the INA, show that your removal would disrupt the family unity you share with your sponsoring spouse, and be given a brand new green card.30
Or you could enter the United States illegally, be locked up for 20 years for drug trafficking, and be granted 42B cancellation under section 240A(b) of the INA by showing that such relief is “appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes” (whatever that means).31
I will note that 42B relief requires the applicant show that he or she has been a person of “good moral character” for 10 years before applying, and that under section 101(f)(8) of the INA, an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony is barred from being found to be “a person of good moral character”.32 The provision in question (section 401(a) in H.R. 5383), however, states that it applies “[n]othwithstanding any other provision of law,” vitiating this bar.33
And section 401(d) in that bill strikes section 240A(d)(1)34 of the INA, which stops the clock on the accrual of residence and physical presence (periods of which are required for 42A and 42B cancellation of removal) when the alien commits a criminal offense that would render the alien inadmissible under the criminal grounds in sections 212(a)(2)35 and 237(a)(2) of the INA. 36
If you conclude from all that I have explained thus far that the drafters of H.R. 5383 have done everything that they can to allow every criminal alien to remain in the United States short of simply eliminating the criminal grounds of removability, you would not be far off. But then they go one step further.
Return of Criminal Aliens to the United States — at Government Expense
Under Title VII of that bill, captioned glowingly “Right to Come Home”, the drafters require IJs and the Board of Immigration Appeals to grant any motion to reopen or reconsider filed by any foreign national who was “ordered removed, deported, or excluded”, or who left under a grant of voluntary departure, on or after April 24, 1996 (the date of enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)),37 who would not have been inadmissible, excludable, or deportable under the eviscerated criminal grounds in H.R. 5383, or who would have been eligible to apply for relief under the senseless amendments made therein.
And DHS (that means you, the taxpayer) has to pay to fly all of those previously deported, excluded, and removed aliens who are eligible for reopening and reconsideration of their cases (not simply those who have been granted reopening and reconsideration) “at Government expense” (emphasis added) back to the United States for their immigration proceedings, and must admit or parole them all.
I almost don’t believe what I just typed myself, so I have to insert section 701(d) of H.R. 5383, so you and I can see for ourselves:
TRANSPORTATION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide transportation for aliens eligible for reopening or reconsideration of their proceedings under this section, at Government expense, to return to the United States for further immigration proceedings and shall admit or parole the alien into the United States.
And notwithstanding the fact that section 701(a)(1) of the bill would mandate reopening or reconsideration of the removal proceedings of all those criminal aliens who are living abroad who would be newly free to return to the United States, section 701(f) grants those criminals aliens the ability to seek judicial review of any denials of such motions. Meaning that the aliens who were erroneously flown back to the United States at government expense to apply for reopening or reconsideration because they were not actually eligible could remain even longer.
Restrictions on State and Local Assistance in Immigration Enforcement
Not that there would be any resources to arrest and remove them again, anyway. In addition to the ridiculous restrictions on immigration arrests by ICE and CBP described above, H.R. 5383 would also end the successful 287(g) program, under which immigration authority can be delegated to specially trained state and local law-enforcement officers.38
Not satisfied to stop there, the drafters would also bar civil immigration warrants from being entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database (and its “incorporated criminal history databases”); and bar federal, state, and local law-enforcement officials from entering information relating “to an alien’s immigration status, the existence of a prior removal, deportation, or voluntary departure order against an alien, or any allegations of civil violations of the immigration laws” into those databases. Such information already in those databases would have to be removed within 90 days of the enactment of H.R. 5383, though Lord knows how.
At this point, you really have to wonder whose side the sponsors and drafters of that bill are on. Not to be outdone, however, they also prohibit state and local employees and officials from “performing the function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, transport, or detention of aliens in the United States or otherwise assist in the performance of such functions.” (Emphasis added.)
This means that unless ICE officers are stationed outside the jailhouse door when the alleged alien rapists of an 11-year-old girl are released, those officers will just have to go and find them somewhere else, likely in a spot where someone (the alien, the ICE agent, an intervener, or an innocent member of the public) could get hurt.39 Under H.R. 5383, every state, county, and city will be Montgomery County, Md., and New York City.
The Bill Eliminates the Criminal Penalties for Illegal Entry and Reentry
Finally, the bill repeals sections 275 and 276 of the INA.40
Section 275 of the INA makes it a misdemeanor, subject to imprisonment for up to six months and a fine, for an alien to enter or attempt to enter the United States illegally or through fraud.41 For any alien who subsequently illegally reenters the United States, that section provides for a felony sentence of two years’ imprisonment and a fine. That section also criminalizes marriage fraud.
Section 276 of the INA makes it a felony, subject to imprisonment for up to two years and a fine, for an alien to reenter the United States illegally after being ordered excluded, deported, or removed, with higher penalties (up to 20 years) for aliens removed after being convicted of aggravated felonies, and up to 10 years for aliens removed on terrorist grounds, as well as those removed on other criminal grounds.42
Eliminating these criminal provisions would remove the (remaining) teeth from border enforcement, because the threat of criminal punishment is a significant deterrent to illegal entry (as I have previously explained), especially for aliens who have been removed on criminal grounds or who pose a danger to the national security.43
In addition to the migrants who have entered illegally themselves, the major beneficiaries of the repeal of these provisions are the smugglers and traffickers who prey upon those migrants in making the life-threatening trip illegally to the border, and the criminal cartels who benefit from their passage over the border into the United States.44
H.R. 5383 Is a Roadmap for Immigration Enforcement under Democratic Control
H.R. 5383 is not a serious proposal — not yet, at least. Few members of Congress or senators facing reelection would want to run the inevitable risk that a criminal protected (or worse, returned at government expense) thereunder would commit a crime so heinous and shocking to the conscience that even a media otherwise ignorant, docile, and uninterested as it relates to alien crime could ignore it.
That said, however, the bill pulls the curtain back on where Democrats want to go on immigration, if they get the power to do so. Why do I say that? The first cosponsor is Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the vice-chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship at the House Judiciary Committee (the subcommittee to which that bill has been referred). She is no backbencher who has no idea of what this bill would do. She is leadership on that powerful committee.
Look, you may think that the immigration laws are too harsh on criminal aliens (86 percent of all of the aliens removed by ICE in FY 2019 either had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, as I noted above45). And you may even think that the criminal justice system in the United States itself is too harsh. Given the high recidivism rate for criminals, however, the idea of flying criminals back to the United States is foolhardy, to put it mildly.
Perhaps some in this country might like the frisson of dodging even more dangerous criminals than we already have on a daily basis. Most Americans (citizens and legal immigrants alike) want their communities safe and orderly, though.
The fact is that, however, given the large number of sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States, and given that sanctuary laws only protect criminal aliens, the ideas in H.R. 5383 (other than the paid return of deported criminals) are in effect today — H.R. 5383 simply puts a face, and legal sanction, on them all.46
And bills don’t write themselves. Drafters intend them to become law. Given the opportunity, the sponsor and 44 cosponsors of H.R. 5383 (and likely several others who haven’t taken the step of cosponsorship yet) will make it the law.
Then, we will all have to live with the consequences.
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985. It is the nation’s only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2020-07-07 07:43:012020-07-07 07:50:04VIDEO: Democrats introduce 'New Way Forward Act' the Most Anti-American legislation in U.S. History
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee did not provide specifics on how he would “transform” the nation if he wins in November, and his campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller.
Biden’s comments came at the end of a July Fourth weekend, which saw large protests against racism and police brutality continue across the country.
The former vice president has promised sweeping reforms if elected, but has also attempted to distance himself from protest movements that have called for police departments to be defunded and statues of U.S. founding fathers to come down.
“Vice President Biden does not believe that police should be defunded,” the campaign’s rapid response director Andrew Bates said in a statement in June. “He hears and shares the deep grief and frustration of those calling out for change, and is driven to ensure that justice is done and that we put a stop to this terrible pain.”
Biden also promised to protect statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, which have been targeted by protesters in recent weeks.
“The idea of comparing whether or not George Washington owned slaves, or Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and somebody who was in rebellion, committing treason, running, trying to take down a union to keep slavery, I think there’s a distinction there,” Biden said at a news conference late in June.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2020-07-07 05:39:552020-07-07 05:44:52Joe Biden Promises To ‘Transform’ America If Elected