The Humanitarian Hoax of Sanctuary Cities: Killing America With Kindness

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years by persuading America to accept his crippling politically correct sanctuary city policies as altruistic when in fact they were designed to destabilize and destroy civil society. His legacy, the Leftist Democratic Party and its “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism.

The term “sanctuary city” originated in the 1980’s when San Francisco passed a city ordinance forbidding city police or city magistrates from assisting federal immigration officers in enforcing immigration policies that denied asylum to refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador. The mission of the sanctuary city was to protect innocent refugees from deportation – although these immigrants were in the U.S. illegally they had not committed any other crimes.

Today sanctuary cities are actually sanctuary jurisdictions because they include cities counties and states. Over 300 sanctuary jurisdictions exist in America today actively hindering federal authorities from seizing illegal criminal aliens, rapists, murderers, terrorists, and drug dealers for deportation.

The shocking murder of 21 year old Kate Steinle on July 1, 2015 publicized the danger of sanctuary jurisdictions. The shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico with seven felony convictions had been deported five times and intentionally sought shelter in San Francisco. Yet officials in “sanctuary city” San Francisco refused to turn him over to federal authorities for deportation and instead released him into society enabling him to kill Kate Steinle.

The three young Muslim migrant boys who savagely raped and urinated in the mouth of an innocent five year old girl in Twin Falls, Idaho last year were protected as well. No jail, no deportation, in fact these monsters were shielded by the mainstream media and local city officials who tried to cover up the case and pretend that Twin Falls was a model for multiculturalism. Wendy Olson, Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for Idaho stunned the country by threatening to prosecute Idahoans who spoke out about the heinous crime in ways SHE considered “false or inflammatory.” Judge Thomas Borresen issued an equally stunning gag order that denied the right of anyone in the courtroom to speak about the sentencing even AFTER the case ended.

Twin Falls is one of two Muslim refugee relocation centers in Idaho. Rather than identifying themselves as a “sanctuary city” Twin Falls has chosen the equally disingenuous name of “welcoming city” and declared themselves to be a “neighborly community.” REALLY? Protecting rapists and censoring free speech is definitely not neighborly for the victims!

The word sanctuary implies safety from a threat – it does not mean shelter for immigrant criminal felons, rapists, murderers and terrorists who threaten the safety of law abiding citizens. Why would any law abiding citizen endorse the protection of these criminals whether they are illegal aliens or legal citizens? The answer lies in the active participation by the mainstream media in the humanitarian hoax of sanctuary cities. The media has deliberately romanticized sanctuary cities as humanitarian havens for the oppressed instead of honestly reporting them as despicable safety zones for criminal aliens. The colluding media has duped the trusting American public and exploited their compassion and good will.

The original mission of sanctuary cities has been perverted from the protection of innocent refugees into the protection of guilty criminal aliens at the expense of public safety. Sanctuary cities in America continue to flagrantly defy the law. Thirty years after San Francisco became the first sanctuary city California seeks to become the first sanctuary state.

The protection of illegal aliens from deportation incentivizes illegal entry into the U.S. which has enormous economic consequences as well. Illegal aliens overload our welfare system, cost American taxpayers a whopping $116 BILLION, and rob legal citizens of their jobs.

Obama gave sanctuary cities the freedom to ignore detention orders from ICE through his own Priority Enforcement Program which allowed local agencies to ignore ICE notifications of deportable aliens in their custody. Why? The Leftist Democrat Party under Obama supported sanctuary cities by ignoring the 1996 law 8 U.S.C. § 1373 that repealed sanctuary city policies? Why?

If you want to know the motive look at the result. Increasing the number of illegal aliens:

  • Secures more Democrat legal and illegal votes for the Leftist agenda through chain migration.
  • Creates social chaos by importing populations with hostile cultural norms.
  • Creates divisiveness by taking American jobs.
  • Alienates legal citizens who receive far fewer government benefits.
  • Eventually collapse the economy of sanctuary jurisdictions.

Finally, in July, 2016 Republican Representative John Culberson-TX, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Committee on Appropriations took action against the danger and sent a letter to the DOJ demanding federal law enforcement grants be denied to cities not in compliance with the 1996 law 8 U.S.C. § 1373 that repealed sanctuary city policies.

During the five years from 2011-2016 local and state governments had received over $3.4 BILLION in federal law enforcement grants. The Culberson choice was between receiving billions of dollars in federal law enforcement grant money or protecting dangerous illegal criminal aliens. Sanctuary jurisdictions could no longer do both.

Sanctuary jurisdictions doubled down and continue to defy the law.

No-go zones are geographic areas within a country that flagrantly disregard the laws of the country. No-go zones establish a two-tier system of justice within a country because they observe a different set of laws. All across Europe Islamists have established religious no-go zones that recognize Islamic sharia law exclusively. All across America Leftists have created lawless sanctuary jurisdiction that flagrantly defy federal law.

People will stand quietly and peacefully in long lines until one person jumps the line. It is a fascinating social dynamic that as long as members of a group abide by the same rules the consequence is harmony. It is the unfairness of the line-jumper that creates anger and social chaos. Social chaos is the goal of the Leftist/Islamist axis that supports the two-tier system of justice created by secular sanctuary jurisdictions and religious no-go zones.

The goal and the underlying motive of the globalist elite’s campaign to destroy America from within is the imposition of one-world government. Obama is the primary globalist huckster. American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government and President Donald Trump is America’s leader. The globalist elite are desperate to stop Trump because if Obama’s Leftist/Islamist resistance movement is exposed as their deliberate political tactic to destabilize and destroy America it leaves the globalist elite without their primetime huckster to continue marching America toward anarchy and social chaos.

If the globalists are successful the world will be returned to the dystopian existence of masters and slaves because a willfully blind American public was seduced by the Humanitarian Hoax of sanctuary cities. The Humanitarian Hoax will have succeeded in killing America with “kindness.”

Sanctuary List

States

California
Connecticut
New Mexico
Colorado

Cities and Counties

California

Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Orange County
Orange County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County

Colorado

Arapahoe County
Aurora
Boulder County
Denver County
Garfield County
Grand County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Mesa County
Pitkin County
Pueblo County
Routt County
San Miguel County
Weld County

Connecticut

East Haven
Hartford

District Of Columbia

Washington

Florida

Alachua County
Clay County
Hernando County

Georgia

Clayton County
DeKalb County

Iowa

Benton County
Cass County
Franklin County
Fremont County
Greene County
Ida County
Iowa City
Iowa City, Johnson County
Jefferson County
Marion County
Monona County
Montgomery County
Pottawattamie County
Sioux County

Illinois

Chicago
Cook County

Kansas

Butler County
Harvey County
Sedgwick County
Shawnee County

Louisiana

New Orleans

Massachusetts

Amherst
Boston
Cambridge
Lawrence
Northhampton
Somerville

Maryland

Baltimore
Montgomery County
Prince George’s County

Minnesota

Hennepin County

Nebraska

Hall County
Sarpy County

New Jersey

Middlesex County
Newark
Ocean County
Union County

New Mexico

Benalillo
New Mexico County Jails
San Miguel

Nevada

Washoe County

New York

Franklin County
Ithaca
Nassau County
New York City
Omondaga County
St. Lawrence County
Wayne County

Oregon

Baker County
Clackamas County
Clatsop County
Coos County
Crook County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Douglas County
Gilliam County
Grant County
Hood River County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Josephine County
Lane Countyn
Lincoln County
Linn County
Malheur County
Marion County
Marlon County
Multnomah County
Polk County
Sherman County
Springfield
Tillamok County
Umatilla County
Union County
Wallowa County
Wasco County
Washington County
Wheeler County
Yamhill County

Pennsylvania

Bradford County
Bucks County
Butler County
Chester County
Clarion County
Delaware County
Eerie County
Franklin County
Lebanon County
Lehigh County
Lycoming County
Montgomery County
Montour County
Perry County
Philadelphia
Pike County
Westmoreland County

Rhode Island

Providence, Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Texas

Dallas County
Travis County

Virginia

Arlington County
Chesterfield County

Vermont

Monteplier
Winooski

Washington

Chelan County
Clallam County
Clark County
Cowlitz County
Franklin County
Jefferson County
King County
Kitsap County
Pierce County
San Juan County
Skagit County
Snohomish County
Spokane County
Thurston County
Walla Walla County
Wallowa County
Whatcom County
Yakima County

Wisconsin

Milwaukee

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Goudsmit Pundicity

Hillary’s Libya Legacy Could Affect You!

/in , , , , /by

UN short-circuiting the flow from Libya to Europe by sending migrants to the good ol’ welcoming USA?

Hillary, along with her gal pals Susan Rice and Samantha Power, are the leading culprits in the Obama Administration’s disastrous involvement in the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the creation of a failed state that has become a primary route for the migrant invasion of Europe.

Now we learn that the UN, partially in hopes of saving the present Italian government (Italians are pretty angry about the Libya to Italy express), is planning to open up a refugee holding facility in Tripoli where migrants will be detained until they can be moved to transit centers.

But, guess what! Most in the transit centers will go to Canada, Norway, and drum roll—the United States.

Hillary gloats about knocking off Gaddafi turning Libya into a completely unstable hell hole, and America gets more refugees!

From Reuters  (emphasis is mine):

ROME (Reuters) – The U.N. refugee agency is seeking to open a refugee transit center in Tripoli early next year to resettle or evacuate as many as 5,000 of the most vulnerable refugees out of Libya each year, a senior U.N. official said on Friday.

It is a small fraction of the total number of Libya’s migrant population, estimated at as many as 1 million, but would be a welcome outlet for the 43,000 refugees that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates are now trapped in Libya.

“We hope to have the (written) authorization soon,” Roberto Mignone, the UNHCR’s representative in Libya, told Reuters in Rome. The U.N.-backed Tripoli government has already approved the project verbally, he said.

[….]

Italy has become the main migrant route to Europe since an agreement between the EU and Turkey shut down smuggling through Greece last year, but arrivals have fallen sharply since July, when an armed group clamped down on departures.

With the backing of the European Union, Italy has financed, trained and equipped by the Tripoli-based coast guard. With a national election due early next year, Italy is also promising tens of millions of euros to Prime Minister Fayez al-Seraj and municipal governments to put a stop to smuggling.

[.…]

Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti has said he is depending on the U.N. refugee and migration agencies to improve conditions for refugees and migrants now trapped in Libya.

“We can’t be the only solution,” Mignone said, also because Libya remains very dangerous and international staff still have very limited access to the country.

[….]

While the UNHCR hopes to resettle many of them, it is a lengthy process. Many countries do not have a permanent diplomatic presence in Tripoli, further complicating matters.

So the agency will seek to evacuate most of them, Mignone said, to emergency transit centers in Romania, Slovakia or even Costa Rica, where they will have more time to apply for resettlement. The agency is currently working to open another emergency transit center in Niger, he said.

More at Reuters, here.

Here is one article I found telling us that ‘refugees’ in a transit center in Slovakia are destined for Canada, Norway and the US.  And, I had previously written a post on the Costa Rica transit center with our old friend HIAS being paid by the US State Department to work there.  I better start paying more attention to these transit centers!

So, if the scheme goes through, illegal aliens in Libya will be moved to a transit center and ultimately Anytown, USA instead of pushing on to Europe.

Yippee! They could be part of Donald’s FY18 45,000!

(Fiscal Year 18 begins tomorrow!)

See all my posts, going back years, on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Report: Middle East Refugees to Begin Arriving to U.S. from Australia

Pope announces immigration propaganda week for Catholics (October 7-13)

Trump White House press release seeks to justify 45,000 FY18 refugee cap

First 50 of Australia’s failed asylum seekers have arrived in US

Trump takes easy way out: says we will admit up to 45,000 refugees to begin arriving Sunday

Phony outrage from Senators on Trump refugee consultation with Congress

HIAS leads the pack: wants Congress to admit more refugees than Trump’s 45,000 ceiling

Fall o’ the Leader? House Urges McConnell’s Ouster

/in , , , , , /by

If anyone’s ready to turn the page on September, it’s Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The last few weeks haven’t exactly been kind to the Kentucky senator, who watched his own party set fire to the latest GOP health care repeal, blew millions of dollars on a losing effort in Alabama’s Senate runoff, and got blamed for all of it by Donald Trump. “He’s got his hands full,” said Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the understatement of the year.

But lately, Republicans are wondering if the party’s fate should be in his hands in the first place. After days of disappointments, voters aren’t the only ones peeved by the Senate leadership’s inability to move the conservative agenda forward. So are some Members of Congress. In the House, where leaders have kept up their end of the Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, tax, and budget bargains, “frustrating” doesn’t begin to describe members’ feelings. Despite their differences, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has managed to send key bills to the Senate only to watch them die at the hands of a divided and disorganized caucus. After 10 years as the GOP’s top dog, some Republicans are saying it’s time for McConnell to call it quits.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.) didn’t beat around the bush with his criticism, insisting earlier today that it’s in the party’s best interest for the Kentucky senator to retire. “I think he’s a huge part of the problem,” the RSC chief told NBC. “There’s a growing consensus that would be very happy if the fine senator from Kentucky called it a career.” McConnell’s counterpart wasn’t as blunt as Walker, but even Speaker Ryan was clear that tensions between the two chambers had hit a boiling point. “We’re really frustrated,” he told reporters. “Look,” he went on, “we passed 373 bills here in the House [and] 270-some are still in the Senate.” No wonder they’re irritated. The House’s pace is blowing past the marks it set in the Obama, Clinton, and both Bush administrations.

On his side of the Capitol, McConnell’s party is circling the wagons. “Mitch is sort of the symbol of our dysfunction,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, “but it’s not about Mitch, it’s about all of us.” Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson (R) pointed out the difficulty of the Leader’s job. “It’s hard herding cats. I don’t envy him his task, okay?” Few do. But leaders are chosen to rise above those challenges and unite their party. Senator McConnell has had a decade as the chamber’s top Republican to prove that he can. I respect McConnell, but there’s no excuse for faltering now — not when the GOP has the keys to Congress and the White House.

The Senate has been a graveyard for almost every promise made to voters. It’s time for a radical overhaul. And if Republicans won’t do it — voters will.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

Also in the September 29 Washington Update:

Trump Courts Conservatives with Solid Judges

Voters Ask White House to Man up on Mandate

RELATED ARTICLE: The Washington Corruption that is the ‘Swamp’

Cost of Illegal immigration: Record $135 billion average $8,075 for each illegal, $25,000 in New York

/in , , , , , , /by

A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.

The Number of Illegal Immigrants in the US

Estimating the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on the U.S. taxpayer depends on the size and characteristics of the illegal alien population. FAIR defines “illegal alien” as anyone who entered the United States without authorization and anyone who unlawfully remains once his/her authorization has expired. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has no central database containing information on the citizenship status of everyone lawfully present in the United States. The overall problem of estimating the illegal alien population is further complicated by the fact that the majority of available sources on immigration status rely on self-reported data. Given that illegal aliens have a motive to lie about their immigration status, in order to avoid discovery, the accuracy of these statistics is dubious, at best. All of the foregoing issues make it very difficult to assess the current illegal alien population of the United States.

However, FAIR now estimates that there are approximately 12.5 million illegal alien residents. This number uses FAIR’s previous estimates but adjusts for suspected changes in levels of unlawful migration, based on information available from the Department of Homeland Security, data available from other federal and state government agencies, and other research studies completed by reliable think tanks, universities, and other research organizations.

The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the United States

At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend. The sections below will break down and further explain these numbers at the federal, state, and local levels.

Total Governmental Expenditures on Illegal Aliens

Total national costs of undocumented immigrants

Total Tax Contributions by Illegal Aliens

Total taxes paid by illegal immigrants

Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

Federal

The Federal government spends a net amount of $45.8 billion on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. This amount includes expenditures for public education, medical care, justice enforcement initiatives, welfare programs and other miscellaneous costs. It also factors in the meager amount illegal aliens pay to the federal government in income, social security, Medicare and excise taxes.

FEDERAL SPENDING

The approximately $46 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering. Assuming an illegal alien population of approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens and 4.2 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, that amounts to roughly $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. For the sake of comparison, the average American college student receives only $4,800 in federal student loans each year.

FAIR maintains that every concerned American citizen should be asking our government why, in a time of increasing costs and shrinking resources, is it spending such large amounts of money on individuals who have no right, nor authorization, to be in the United States? This is an especially important question in view of the fact that the illegal alien beneficiaries of American taxpayer largess offset very little of the enormous costs of their presence by the payment of taxes. Meanwhile, average Americans pay approximately 30% of their income in taxes.

Federal Education – $1.6 Billion

Federal Medical Costs – $17.1 Billion

Federal Justice Expenditures – $13.1 Billion

Federal Welfare Programs – $5.8 Billion

Total Federal Expenditures – $45.8 Billion

FEDERAL TAXES

Taxes collected from illegal aliens offset fiscal outlays and, therefore must be included in any examination of the cost of illegal immigration. However, illegal alien apologists frequently cite the allegedly large tax payments made by illegal aliens as a justification for their unlawful presence, and as a basis for offering them permanent legal status through a new amnesty, similar to the one enacted in 1986. That argument is nothing more than a red herring.

FAIR believes that most studies grossly overestimate both the taxes actually collected from illegal aliens and, more importantly, the amount of taxes actually paid by illegal aliens (i.e., the amount of money collected from illegal aliens and actually kept by the federal government). This belief is based on a number of factors: Since the 1990’s, the United States has focused on apprehending and removing criminal aliens. The majority of illegal aliens seeking employment in the United States have lived in an environment where they have little fear of deportation, even if discovered. This has created an environment where most illegal aliens are both able and willing to file tax returns. Because the vast majority of illegal aliens hold low-paying jobs, those who are subject to wage deductions actually wind up receiving a complete refund of all taxes paid, plus net payments made on the basis of tax credits.

As a result, illegal aliens actually profit from filing a tax return and, therefore, have a strong interest in doing so.

Federal Tax Receipts from Illegal Aliens – $22.1 Billion

TOTAL FEDERAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Net Federal Impact of Illegal Aliens – $30.4 Billion

State and Local

Even though the costs of illegal immigration borne by taxpayers at the federal level are staggering, they only pale in comparison to the fiscal burden shouldered by taxpayers at the state level. Most government taxes and fees remitted to government by Americans are paid in forms other than income taxes submitted to the IRS on April 15th. There are city and state income taxes, fuel surcharges, sales and property taxes, etc…. States and localities also bear the main burden for costs associated with public education, city and county infrastructure, and local courts and jails.

A further complication is the fact that, while barred from many federal benefits, state laws allow illegal aliens to access many state-funded social welfare programs. Because so little data is collected on the immigration status of individuals collecting benefits, it is difficult to determine the rate at which illegal aliens use welfare programs. However, based on the average income of illegal alien households, it appears they use these programs at a rate higher than lawfully present aliens or citizens.

STATE AND LOCAL SPENDING

The combined total of state and local government general expenditures on illegal aliens is $18,571,428,571 billion. The services referenced in this section are supported directly by the payment of city and state taxes and related fees. At the state level, examples of general expenditures would be the costs of general governance, fire departments, garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance, etc. The state, county or municipality — or even a special taxing district in some situations — may provide some of these services. In most cases, localities offer more services than the state. By FAIR’s estimate, there is approximately a 65 percent to 35 percent cost share between local and state governments.

The estimate of general expenditure services received by illegal alien households, beyond the specific outlays mentioned in the sections above, excludes capital expenditures and debt servicing. The calculation for each state is based on the state’s annual operating budget, reduced by the amount covered by the federal government. That expenditure is then reduced further based on the relative size of the estimated population of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born minor children. As noted in our population estimate, this means states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc., with larger illegal alien cohorts, will bear larger shares of these costs.

State Educational Expenditures – $44.4 Billion

State Medical Expenditures – $12.1 Billion

State Administration of Justice Expenditures – $10.8 Billion

State Welfare Expenditures – $2.9 Billion

State and Local Expenditures – $88 Billion

STATE AND LOCAL TAXES COLLECTED

Offsetting the fiscal costs of the illegal alien population are the taxes collected from them at the state and local level. Many proponents of illegal immigration argue that the taxes paid to the states render illegal aliens a net boon to state and local economies. However, this is a spurious argument. Evidence shows that the tax payments made by illegal aliens fail to cover the costs of the many services they consume.

Illegal aliens are not typical taxpayers. First, as previously noted in this study, the large percentage of illegal aliens who work in the underground economy frequently avoid paying any income tax at all. (Many actually receive a net cash profit through refundable tax credit programs.) Second, and also previously noted, the average earnings of illegal alien households are considerably lower than both legal aliens and native-born workers.

State Taxes Collected – $3.5 Billion

TOTAL STATE AND LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Net State Impact – $85 Billion

Federal and State Fiscal Outlays – $134 Billion

Federal and State Tax Contributions – $18 Billion

Net Cost of Illegal Immigration – $115 Billion

RELATED VIDEO: DNC leader compares illegal immigrants to Holocaust victims

Judge Roy Moore Wins GOP’s Alabama Senate Runoff

/in , , , , , , /by

Roy Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, defeats incumbent Sen. Luther Strange, R-Ala., in the race to decide who would battle Democrat nominee Doug Jones in the Dec. 12 special election.

Challenger Roy Moore soundly defeated incumbent Luther Strange in Tuesday’s runoff to choose the Republican nominee in Alabama’s U.S. Senate race.

With all precincts reporting after 11 p.m., Moore had 54.6 percent or 262,204 votes and Strange had 45.4 percent or 218,066 votes. The Associated Press called the race when results from about half the 2,286 precincts were in.

“Republican voters know who a person of principle is,” Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, told The Daily Signal in a pre-election interview predicting a victory for Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Moore will face Democrat Doug Jones in the Dec. 12 special election for the Senate seat vacated by Republican Jeff Sessions when he became attorney general in the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump had endorsed Strange, whom he considered loyal to his priorities.

Trump tweeted congratulations to Moore late Tuesday night:

“From the beginning of this campaign, my priority has been serving the people of Alabama,” Strange, the state’s former attorney general, said in a written concession statement. “Tomorrow, I will go back to work with President Trump and do all I can to advance his agenda over the next few weeks.”

In victory remarks in which he characteristically evoked faith in God, Moore said:

Together we can make America great. We can support the president. Don’t let anybody in the press think that because [Trump] supported my opponent I do not support him and support his agenda. As long as it’s constitutional, as long as it advances our society, our culture, our country, I will be supportive. … But we have to return the knowledge of God and the Constitution of the United States to the United States Congress.

The runoff Tuesday was set up when neither Strange nor Moore garnered 50 percent of the vote in a 10-candidate primary Aug. 15.  (Moore got 40 percent to Strange’s 33 percent, while Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., finished third with 20 percent.)

Republicans seek to preserve their slim 52-seat majority in the 100-seat Senate.

Moore tweeted as his victory became clear:

Democrats’ nominee Jones, 63, is a lawyer and former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama appointed by President Bill Clinton. His campaign platform includes health care reform, environmental protections, civil rights, and criminal justice reform.

On  Feb. 9, then-Gov. Robert Bentley appointed Strange to the seat vacated when the Senate confirmed one of its own, Sessions, as attorney general.

Trump endorsed and stumped for Strange, but also said at a rally Friday night in Huntsville, Alabama, that he would work “like hell” to elect Moore should the challenger prevail.

“I might have made a mistake,” Trump said at one point. “I’ll be honest, I might have made a mistake.”

But the president added: “Luther [Strange] will definitely win.”

In the runoff, Moore, 70, presented himself as the true conservative, while Strange, 64, batted away accusations that he is too establishment. Moore had led in polls, but Strange appeared to be closing the gap.

Andrew Roth, vice president of government affairs at the Club for Growth, predicted in an interview with The Daily Signal that the runoff would be a bellwether for how state voters view progress in Congress.

“The way I view this race is that it’s more of an establishment versus anti-establishment race,” Roth said. “The issues, conservative or not, didn’t really play in this. The race is more about what voters want out of Congress and out of the Senate.”

Vice President Mike Pence, a former congressman from Indiana as well as that state’s governor, also endorsed Strange.

“Our president needs Luther Strange back in the United States Senate so he can finish the job,” Pence said Monday night at a rally at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport. “I know Sen. Luther Strange will be there for our president, because he’s already been there.”

Sen. Luther Strange lost to challenger Roy Moore. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

The Washington Examiner and other news outlets reported that the Senate Leadership Fund, a political action committee tied to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., filled Alabama’s TV and radio airwaves with millions of dollars worth of ads backing Strange and attacking Moore.

Moore’s high-profile supporters include Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate, as well as former Trump White House aides Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka.

“A vote for Judge Moore isn’t a vote against the president,” Palin said Thursday night, adding:

It is a vote for the people’s agenda that elected the president. It’s for the big, beautiful movement that we’re all a part of. The president needs support to keep the promises that elected him. So we’re sending Trump someone who has our back, not Mitch McConnell’s … Make no mistake, ‘Big Luther’ is Mitch McConnell’s guy.

“While we were honored to have fought hard for Big Luther, Judge Roy Moore won this nomination fair and square and he has our support, as it is vital that we keep this seat in Republican hands,” the Senate Leadership Fund said in a formal acknowledgement of Strange’s loss Tuesday night.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, came out Monday in support of Moore.

“A Judge Moore win really would make sure that the Trump agenda gets implemented,” Meadows told Breitbart News, adding:

There’s all kinds of members of Congress and senators who will run, and they really run so incredibly strong like they have a backbone of steel, but they really have a backbone of a banana. You know, when it’s peeled back, it gets real mushy when they get to Washington, D.C. So we need to give them some steel. Judge Roy Moore has a backbone of steel.

Trump won Alabama in November with 62 percent of the vote.

Moore is perhaps best known for being removed twice as Alabama’s chief justice, first in 2003 for refusing to take down a Ten Commandments monument and again in 2016, after his re-election, for ordering judges not to issue licenses for same-sex marriages.

Moore’s campaign platform included support for limited government, immigration reform, a border wall, energy independence, and the military.

The Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund also endorsed Moore.

Martin, the Tea Party Patriots co-founder, told The Daily Signal before the polls opened that by choosing Moore, GOP voters would be “sending a message to Washington that they want someone they can count on to stick to their principles.”

A victory for Strange, she said, would be on account of Trump.

“Given President Trump’s endorsement, people in Alabama will think that Strange will support the president’s agenda,” Martin said.

The GOP runoff was a product of voter frustration with the status quo, the Club for Growth’s Roth said.

“The dysfunction in Washington has been around for so long that maybe, finally the voters have finally had enough,” Roth said, adding:

You certainly saw them express that in November when Trump won [and] you’re going to continue to see the voters express their anger until they get things fixed.

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report, which was updated to include candidate statements and final unofficial results.  

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

RELATED ARTICLES:

Moore Victory Shows Populist Movement Bigger Than Trump. He Must Return To Lead It.

What the Roy Moore victory means

Texas Wins the Second Round on Sanctuary Cities

/in , , , , , , /by

Texas has just won the second (procedural) round in the fight over the state Legislature’s attempt to punish cities that implement sanctuary policies.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed on Monday key portions of the injunction issued in September by a federal judge in San Antonio that prevented the state from implementing major parts of the law.

As explained here, the 2017 statute applies to illegal aliens arrested or otherwise lawfully detained by local law enforcement.

The core parts of the law ban Texas cities from prohibiting or “materially limit[ing]” local law enforcement from:

  1. Notifying federal immigration officials that an illegal alien has been arrested.
  2. Cooperating with immigration authorities (including honoring detainer warrants on illegal aliens issued by federal authorities).
  3. Allowing federal immigration officers to enter local jails to conduct investigations of criminal illegal aliens.

The lower court federal judge had enjoined Texas from implementing the second and third provisions. However, the 5th Circuit issued a stay of that portion of the injunction.

Holding that Texas was likely to succeed on the merits of those two provisions, the 5th Circuit lifted the injunction until the appeals court has a chance to consider the merits of the case. Otherwise, the “state necessarily suffers the irreparable harms of denying the public interest in the enforcement of its laws.”

Prior case law holds that when it is a state appealing, the state’s “interest and harm merges with that of the public.”

According to the appeals court, the lower court judge misinterpreted federal law when he enjoined the Texas provision on cooperation and assistance with federal immigration authorities. The statute he cited, 8 U.S.C. §1357(g), actually “provides for such assistance.”

So Texas can “prohibit” local jurisdictions from engaging in such behavior, although the injunction remains in place on the phrase “materially limits” because that phrase needs “clarifying.” But being able to “prohibit” gives Texas what it needs in order to stop these sanctuary policies.

The appeals court also threw out the injunction on the section of the Texas law that requires local law enforcement to “comply with, honor, and fulfill” any immigration detainer request issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The 5th Circuit panel noted that local jurisdictions would not have to comply with a detainer request if the detainee “provide[s] proof” of lawful immigration status. Further, unlike the view of the lower court judge, this provision of the Texas law only “mandates that local agencies cooperate according to existing ICE detainer practice and law.”

This means that the most important provisions of the Texas statute that are intended to stop sanctuary policies from being implemented locally are still in force, and will remain in force until the 5th Circuit issues a decision on the merits.

That is vital to the public safety of the citizens of Texas. Sanctuary policies create sanctuaries for criminals.

According to PJ Media, an unreleased internal report from the Texas Department of Public Safety revealed that from 2008 to 2014, criminal aliens committed over 600,000 crimes in the state, including almost 3,000 murders.

Yet cities like Dallas and Austin, which are among the challengers in this litigation, are telling their residents that they would rather release criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes such as assault, burglary, sexual assault, theft, and even homicide into their local communities (where they can victimize even more people) than call federal immigration authorities so that they can be picked up and deported.

As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “Enforcing immigration law helps prevent dangerous criminals from being released into Texas communities.”

We can only hope the 5th Circuit realizes this when issuing its final decision on this Texas law.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

Mama Merkel could have a rough next 4 years

/in , , , , , /by

Invasion of Europe news…

What did she win? In four more years will Germany even be recognizable?

You’ve seen the news I’m sure, but this headline at Reuters caught my attention:

Incensed over refugees, east Germans punish easterner Merkel

Here is the story.  Germany headed down the tubes IMHO (emphasis below is mine):

BERLIN (Reuters) – For weeks, Chancellor Angela Merkel endured taunts and whistles whenever she ventured out on the campaign trail in her home region of eastern Germany.

Merkel oopsy

Chancellor Angela Merkel

And on Sunday, it was voters in the east, incensed by her decision to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees into the country, that helped send her conservatives to their worst result since 1949 and vaulted a far-right party into the German parliament.

They want Germany for Germans! What a novel idea!

Preliminary results showed the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) winning 22.9 percent of the vote in the former communist east, well above their national result of roughly 13 percent. The AfD performed especially well with east German men, 26 percent of whom backed the party.

[….]

Merkel did secure a fourth term on Sunday, but she limped to the finish line and must now cobble together an unwieldy coalition with two other parties — the business friendly Free Democrats (FDP) and environmentalist Greens — that have diametrically opposed views on many of the big issues.

The result suggested that pollsters may have underestimated the lingering impact of the refugee crisis in the election and the outsized influence it would have in the east, where voters continue to behave very differently than their brethren in the west 28 years after the fall of the Wall. [Those eastern Europeans haven’t been sufficiently brain-washed with political correctness, or do they understand what occupation feels like!—ed]

I have a very large archive on Germany and an even larger one on the ‘Invasion of Europe.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Obama’s State Department had big plans for new resettlement sites

Trump travel ban morphs into new list, extra vetting

St. Cloud, MN: a microcosm of the battle ahead for cities targeted by federal refugee program

President Trump announces new entry restrictions on Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela

/in , , , , /by

This is fine, since there are only two choices: keep out some harmless people or let in some harmful people. Trump is choosing the former, but if he really wants to keep jihadis out, he is going to have to extend the restrictions eventually to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

“Trump administration announces new travel restrictions,” by Laura Jarrett, CNN, September 24, 2017:

Washington (CNN)The Trump administration has unveiled new travel restrictions on certain foreigners from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen as a replacement to a central portion of its controversial travel ban signed earlier this year.

Chad, North Korea and Venezuela are new to the list of affected countries. The new restrictions on travel vary by country and include a phased-in approach.

For the last three months, the Trump administration used an executive order to ban foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US unless they have a “bona fide” relationship with a person or entity in the country. Those nations include Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan.

Individuals with that “bona fide” exception — such as a foreign grandparent of a US citizen — can still apply for visas until October 18. After that date, the new restrictions on travel will begin….

RELATED ARTICLES:

3 Key Elements of Trump’s New Travel Ban

London’s Muslim mayor says Trump’s rhetoric is like that of the Islamic State

Trump’s New Travel Ban Is Standard Security Policy

Stunning Surprise Looms in German Election: Nationalist Alternative for Germany Party Headed for Big Finish

/in , , , , , /by

A just-completed “Deutschland Trend” poll by ARD (German Radio) showed the CDU-CSU leading the SPD in seats for the Bundestag by a striking margin of 37% to 21%. If accurate, this means that the SPD – considered one of the two leading parties since Germany was West Germany from 1945 until it was re-unified with East Germany in 1990 – will have turned in its worst-ever performance in a federal election.

blue_logo
By John Gizzi

With days before German voters go to the polls September 24, all signs point to the outcome widely predicted when the national election campaign commenced earlier this year: Chancellor Angela Merkel and her CDU-CSU (conservative) Party will romp to a fourth consecutive triumph over the SPD (Social Democratic) Party.

But the truly big story of the German election may just be the likely third-place finisher, the relatively new (four years old) nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party, now shown by most polls to be running third on a hardline platform of expelling illegal immigrants and banning the burka.

In a year in which nationalist parties such as Marine LePen’s National Front (FN) and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom fared worse than expected at the polls in France and the Netherlands respectively, the AfD is headed for a strong showing in races for the 630 seats in the German Bundestag (parliament).

Such a showing is sure to attract worldwide coverage and give the AfD the status it so desperately needs to be considered a full-fledged voice of opposition to Merkel and her admission of nearly one million refugees to Germany. And it could demonstrate to the world that the “hardline” on illegal immigration is alive and well in Europe.

The British tabloid, The Sun, headlined the Berlin terrorist attack in December that killed 12 after a truck ploughed through the Christmas market, “THEY ARE MERKEL’S DEAD,” blaming the Chancellor’s “open door” migration policy.

Mutti and Martin

Admittedly, Merkel, 63, has been bruised by voter animosity because of the one-million-plus refugees in Germany since 2015. But she is nevertheless still perceived by the much of the electorate as “Mutti” (Mommy) or “the Iron Chancellor”—the lone politician capable of steering Germany through what appears to be a stormy future of an uncertain European economy, serious questions about admission of refugees, and Berlin’s complex relationship with Donald Trump’s Washington.

In contrast, the opposition SPD (Social Democratic) party has suffered because its leader, former European Parliament President Martin Schulz, never lived up to positive advance reviews when he became its nominee for chancellor.

Former North Rhine-Westphalia Mayor and bookseller Schulz’s manifesto of “social justice” calls for raising taxes on the rich and new investments in infrastructure. But in a country where employment and wages both rose this year, it just didn’t resonate.

In addition, after four years as junior partner in a “grand coalition” headed by Merkel’s CDU-CSU, the SPD has had a difficult time criticizing the status quo in Berlin. After all, they are part of it.

A just-completed “Deutschland Trend” poll by ARD (German Radio) showed the CDU-CSU leading the SPD in seats for the Bundestag by a striking margin of 37% to 21%. If accurate, this means that the SPD – considered one of the two leading parties since Germany was West Germany from 1945 until it was re-unified with East Germany in 1990 – will have turned in its worst-ever performance in a federal election.

Perhaps the “hidden story” of the German election lies in the remaining figures in the ARD survey. Five years after it was born, the nationalist Alternative for Germany Party (AfD) is now running third with 11%. Then comes the Linke (Far Left) Party with 10%, the libertarian Free Democrats at 9% and the environmentalist Greens 8%.

“There’s A Growing General Nervousness”

Reporting on Merkel’s twilight days on the stump, Martin Klingst, senior political correspondent for the venerable German publication Die Ziet, told this reporter that “she’s often confronted with loud protest, mainly coming from AfD-sympathizers.”

“Wherever Merkel gives speeches,” said Klingst, “and this is especially true in the Eastern parts of Germany, crowds of protesters show up and shout ‘Go away! Merkel must go!’ They call her a traitor and un-German.”

He added that “this is very unpleasant, and no one knows how this will translate on Election Day.”

Founded in April 2013, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) was initially a vehicle to protest the EU’s policy of not ejecting Member-nations that accumulate major debt such as Greece.

Over the next four years, AfD expanded its platform to become Germany’s premier anti-Establishment party: vowing to take Germany out of the Euro, secure the borders, and ban the burka for Muslim women.

Like LePen’s National Front and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the AfD strongly favors a warmer relationship with Russia under Vladimir Putin. At events for cultivating the estimated 2.5 million Russian immigrants to Germany, the AfD offers German translations of Putin’s speeches.

In 2013, AfD fell just short of the 5% of the vote required for seats in the Bundestag. A year later, it scored handsomely in races for seats in the European Parliament. It has since won seats in 13 of the 16 state parliaments.

Regarding the AfD’s likely performance in this election, former German Defense Minister Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg told this reporter, “They have initially surged because of the refugee crisis and they are now profiting from the fact that the CDU and SPD are hard to distinguish. A two digit result is unfortunately not impossible.”

Die Ziet’s Klingst goes a step further: “People who tend to vote for more extreme parties and candidates often tend to not honestly reveal their choices in the surveys. I’m not sure myself, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the AfD gained between 10 and 14 %. And, as it has happened with Trump, it also happens with the AfD – they attract voters who’ve not voted for a long time.”

Like many growing parties, the AfD has its disparate personalities. Beatrix von Storch, one of its MEPs (Members of European Parliament), is considered a highly articulate spokesperson on the EU and economic issues, AfD Deputy Leader Alexander Gauland, 76, is an historian and past official in Merkel’s CDU. Former Goldman Sachs management consultant Alice Weidel, 38, leads the party’s lists for seats in the Bundestag. She also makes no secret about being a lesbian.

Other AfD leaders are more controversial. Bjorn Hocke, an AfD candidate from the eastern part of Germany, created a furor earlier this year when he said Germany should stop atoning for Hitler and the Nazis. Last year, Party Leader Frauke Petry made international news last year when she suggested the police “use firearms if necessary” to “prevent illegal border crossings.”

Trying to explain the sudden rise of the AfD, Martin Klingst commented: “You can observe many of the same frustrations you find among Trump voters: the feeling of belonging to the losers in a globalized world; anger at politicians who seem to be removed and disconnected to ordinary people and not concerned about social and financial problems; scape goating others for your problems; and of course real problems in daily life: competition with immigrants and refugees about low-paid jobs and affordable housing; living in areas where you are more confronted with the negative sides of immigration: rise of crimes, of street violence, of sexual assaults, of misbehavior.” He added, “There’s a growing general nervousness here.”

John Gizzi is the White House correspondent and chief political columnist for Newsmax. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the conservative-online-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATED ARTICLE: Mama Merkel could have a rough next 4 years

FATWA: Hunted in America

/in , , , , , , , /by

Pamela Geller’s shocking new book published by Milo’s New Publishing House, Dangerous Books

At a major news conference kicking off the now cancelled “free Speech Week” at Berkeley San Francisco, Milo announced the launch of the shocking new book, Fatwa: Hunted in America. It will be the first book published by Milo’s groundbreaking new publishing house, Dangerous Books. Old school publishers would be terrified to publish this book.

Get it. Now. Support the work. Support new media.

Look what they are they saying:

When Pamela Geller talks about Islam, she does it with both barrels. For sparing us the platitudes when confronting this direct and present danger, she is reviled by society’s bien pensant. In this book, she recounts her adventures in “hate speech,” or as we used to call it, “telling the truth.”  It is both an enlightening and gripping tale.

—- Ann Coulter, Bestselling Author

“How did a nice Jewish girl from Long Island become the Joan of Arc of the counterjihad movement? In this remarkably absorbing page-turner of a book, Pamela Geller tells her story – a story of courage in the face not only of the jihadist enemy but of a veritable army of apologists, appeasers, pacifists, whitewashers, self-styled “bridge-builders,” and assorted cowards, careerists, and sellouts. Armed only with the truth and a passionate love of American liberty, Geller has survived their smears and kept hope alive. It’s an inspiring story that I hope will encourage other freedom-lovers to stand up and be counted before it’s too late.” 

— Bruce Bawer, author of The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind.

Pamela Geller’s fascinating book is the vivid chronicle of a courageous woman who fought vigilantly and with fierceness, confronting dangers, threats and vile defamation, to preserve the American soul of freedom and democratic liberties. A most actual record of our perilous time.

—- Bat Ye’or, Historian, author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, and of Europe, Globalization and the Coming Universal Caliphate

“Pamela Geller is a towering hero of freedom. If free people survive into the next generation, which is by no means assured, Pamela Geller will be celebrated as one of those who stood against the tide of Leftism and Islamic supremacism when it was at its apogee. No proper history of the freedom of the human spirit in our darkening age can be written without including her.”

—- Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.”

“Free-speech advocates who don’t make waves are not doing their jobs. Pamela Geller writes a guidebook here for Paladins of the First Amendment.”

—- Ambassador John Bolton

California Poised to Provide ‘Sanctuary’ to Alien Criminals and Terrorists

/in , , , , , /by

On September 18, 2017, roughly one week after the 16th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the LA Times reported on California’s “sanctuary state” bill-SB 54 that would ostensibly “expand protections for immigrants” by preventing officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.

To understand the ominousness of this measure, we must look back to the 9/11 Commission’s official “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” report, which focused on the multiple failures of the immigration system that enabled the 9/11 terrorists and other international terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

This explicit paragraph explains how sanctuary policies that confound DHS efforts to enforce immigration laws undermines America’s counterterrorism operations:

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

This is why each and every illegal alien, irrespective of whether or not he/she has a criminal record, must not be shielded from detection by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

However, commonsense regarding the need for proper immigration law enforcement is being overshadowed by the manipulations of proponents of immigration anarchy. The LA Times article’s very headline — referring to “immigrants” — highlights the insidious manipulation of language that has made honest discussions about immigration virtually impossible. The process was initiated long ago by the Carter administration, which demanded that the term “Illegal alien” be stricken from the lexicon of INS employees and replaced with the term “undocumented immigrant.”

The removal of that single word — alien — from the vernacular has had a huge impact on the entire immigration debate, causing many decent and otherwise sensible Americans to be deceived into believing “sanctuary cities” exemplify altruism when quite the opposite is true.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the term alien simply means, “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.”  There is no insult in the term “alien” — only clarity. In fact, the title of the DREAM Act actually includes the verboten term “alien” (the DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act).

​Going back to the LA Times headline, in reality, lawful immigrants have absolutely no need for protection from immigration law enforcement officers. The only aliens who are at risk from adverse actions being taken against them by ICE agents are those aliens who either entered the United States illegally or, following lawful entry through a port of entry, either violated the terms of their admission into the United States or have committed criminal offenses in the United States.

Lawful immigrants do, however, have serious need for protection: they need protection from criminal aliens who lurk in their ethnic immigrant communities, plying their criminal trades. These individuals pose the greatest threat to the immigrants among whom they live irrespective of their ethnicities or countries of birth.

“Sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” such as California, which shield illegal aliens and the criminals and terrorists among them from immigration law enforcement authorities, create a life and death nightmare for the residents of the towns, cities and states that attract aliens who face deportation from the country.

During his administration, President George W. Bush attempted, fortunately without success, to create a “guest worker” program for millions of illegal aliens. Bush also played the “name game” and frequently called for “making immigrants legal” while he was, in actuality, calling for a massive amnesty program for unknown millions of illegal aliens.

Back then, Senate Bill S. 2611, legislation that would have created such an amnesty program, attracted the ire and concern of House Republicans who understood the dangers that such an ill-conceived program would create for America’s national security.  Consequently, on July 27, 2006 a hearing. called by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims addressed the dangers inherent in such a program.

During my testimony at this hearing, I stated that any member of Congress who would vote to provide lawful status and identity documents to millions of illegal aliens should be given the “MVP Award” by Al-Qaeda.

Effective enforcement of our immigration laws, from within the interior of the United States, not only helps to prevent terrorists from setting up shop in communities around the country, but similarly combats pernicious transnational gangs, as well as drug trafficking and human trafficking organizations.

The protection of law abiding US citizens, including lawful immigrants, is not a concern for illegal immigration extremists. Case in point: On September 14, 2017 the L.A. Times reported reported on how, under proposed legislation, the California Justice Department would oversee shared gang databases across the state.

Sharing such data is vital for effective law enforcement to achieve essential goals. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission report highlighted the lack of interagency cooperation to share data.  However, this news article reported that the proposed creation of a technical advisory council would, under a new amendment, make certain to shield the gang databases from review by immigration law enforcement.

This is nothing short of obstruction of justice.

Here is the relevant and infuriating paragraph:

The state attorney general also would establish a technical advisory council — comprising law enforcement officials, gang intervention experts and community members — to help ensure law enforcement agencies are following the statewide standards. New amendments would prevent agencies from sharing records from the database with federal authorities for the purpose of immigration enforcement, part of negotiations that also scaled back a separate “sanctuary state” bill in the state Senate

Hypocritically, the open borders/immigration anarchists insist that “Undocumented Immigrants” seldom commit crimes” yet members of the California government are concerned about providing information to ICE about aliens who are members of violent gangs.

Jails and prison are often optimistically referred to as “correctional facilities.”  The hope is that criminals can be reformed during their periods of incarceration.  Unfortunately, all too often convicted felons return to their lives of crime upon their release, victimizing still more innocent people.

Deportation (removal) is the best solution when we are dealing with criminal aliens and recidivism.  Therefore, orders of deporation are tantamount to orders of protection for Americans.

Furthermore, in the early 1980s I convinced then-New York Senator Al D’Amato to draft a bill that would impose a 20-year maximum penalty on aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes, were deported and then unlawfully reentered the United States.  That bill was enacted and is an element of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1326.

The point is to deter criminal aliens from reentering the United States, thereby protecting their potential victims. Sanctuary cities and states shield such alien convicts from detection by ICE, thereby endangering the lives of innocent people including members of the ethnic immigrant communities that attract these violent criminals seeking to evade the long arm of the immigration law enforcement.

Today, members of international terrorist organizations and transnational gangs should give political proponents of sanctuary cities and states their MVP Award.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Ignorance at the Washington Post is stunning

/in , , , , , , /by

“As for the cost, most is borne by private resettlement agencies.” – Washington Post Editorial Board

What! They don’t read RRW every day?

I’ve said it on many occasions but it is frightening to know something about an issue and then see flat-out ignorance about it from people who should have the facts….

But, I suppose when it comes to the Washington Post it might just be that they do know the facts, but are purposefully spewing FAKE NEWS, like this line in their pro-more-refugees-anti-Trump editorial (Trump flirts with a new age of American timidity) a few days ago.

After taking a whack at Stephen Miller they say this:

The stated rationales for further refu­gee cuts — concerns over terrorists sneaking in, and the costs involved — are not defensible. In fact, both the Obama and Trump administrations have tightened vetting for refugees, who are now the subject of exhaustive background checks despite the fact that very few terrorist attacks, in the United States or Europe, have been carried out by refugees. As for the cost, most is borne by private resettlement agencies.

Nevermind for now, that we, and many others, have chronicled the number of refugee terrorists (or wannabe terrorists caught before they acted) in the refugee population in Europe and here.  It is that last sentence that rockets me through the roof!

After years of, not just me, but many other investigators exposing how much money the “private resettlement agencies”*** are paid OUT OF THE US TREASURY to resettle refugees, how can they possibly promote such a falsehood!

See my post on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops here two days ago.

And, here, if you missed it is my recent accounting of all 9 federal refugee contractors. Episcopal Migration Ministries takes the top prize at 99.5% funded by taxpayer dollars!

***These are the federal contractors paid by the head for refugee “clients” they place (secretively!) in your towns and cities. Congress should be investigating how they are using the millions of federal dollars they receive annually.

And, as long as they are running the program on your dime along with their side job of political agitation and community organizing, there can never be reform of the USRAP!

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Catholic Bishops rolling in federal dough according to financial statements

Federal contractor removes director of its San Diego office in wake of investigation

Mainstream political polls commit fraud

DHS says they can’t handle 50,000 refugees for FY18, but 40,000 is okay!

Arizona Rohingya refugee story: from poor refugee to political agitator

Trump State Dept. gives Aussies information we don’t have….

VIDEO: The ‘Fringe’ begins eating its own, starting with Nancy Pelosi

/in , , , , , , , /by

In his remarks on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress on 13 March 1962, John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Today, the Democrat Party has made peaceful revolution impossible and now it is they who are paying the price when it becomes violent. Democrats did not condemn the violence perpetrated by members of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). Instead Nancy Pelosi endorsed the OWS revolution.

In a Weekly Standard column titled “Pelosi on Occupy Wall Street Protesters: ‘God bless them’,” John McCormack wrote:

During a press conference Thursday afternoon, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi praised those participating in the “Occupy Wall Street” protests. “God bless them,” Pelosi said, “for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

Read more.

Occupy Wall Street then began breaking windows, literally.

Once you endorse a revolution it does become a more and more violent revolution. Watch Nancy Pelosi, a champion of open borders and amnesty, shouted down by illegal aliens (so called dreamers) in San Francisco, a sanctuary city, within California, a sanctuary state.

The Democrat Party, and then President Obama, failed to repair the broken windows beginning with the Occupy Oakland riots in California, which inextricably lead to the 2013 riots in Sanford, Florida, 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri and most recently the 2017 riots and death in Charlottesville, Virginia. Now we see the Democrats targeted by their own.

The Democrats have encouraged breaking windows, because “it has always been fun” so long as its the other party that gets hurt. Well now their party is being hurt.

Violence begets more violence: From Sanford, Florida to Ferguson, Missouri to San Francisco, California.

Ayn Rand wrote, “The hardest thing to explain is the glaring evidence which everybody has decided not to see.”

Pat Condell in a YouTube video titled “Europe is Killing Itself” states:

The progressive thing is to merge the two cultures the civilized one and the barbarous one. Of course they know civilized people will reject barbarism. Therefore civilized people need to be reeducated to believe that barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect or you’ll be a criminal. Which is pretty much where we are now.”

In February then candidate Donald J. Trump at a rally in Iowa began reciting the lyrics to a Al Wilson song from 1969 entitled “The Snake.” Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have taken in the snake and it has bitten them and they are going to die politically.

The snake cannot be satisfied with kindness. It must by its very nature bite the hand of those who took it in.

RELATED ARTICLE: 2020 Democratic Presidential Hopefuls: No Longer Friends of Israel

“The Snake” Lyrics

On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
“Poor thing, ” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”
“Take me in tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk
She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she’d taken to had been revived
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful, ” she cried
“But if I hadn’t brought you in by now you might have died”
She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake
“I saved you, ” cried the woman
“And you’ve bitten me, but why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman, ” said the reptile with a grin
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

Written by Robert S. Kelly, Darian Morgan • Copyright © Universal Music Publishing Group

VIDEO: The Endlessly Transformable Muslim Identity Politics Warrior

/in , , , , , /by

Muslims somehow became an oppressed group. They joined the glorious coalition of perpetually oppressed “brown people”.

Linda Sarsour, who once claimed that without her hijab she would have been just another white girl, reinvented herself as one of the official oppressed people of the donkey party. Now Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer asks, if Linda Sarsour can go transracial, where’s the limit?

Only on this episode of the Glazov Gang.

Both suspects in London subway attack are Muslim ‘refugee kids’ nurtured by do-gooders

/in , , , , /by

The ‘kids’ (unaccompanied alien minors?) were from Iraq and Syria.  Both received government-supported foster care from a couple known for their welcome to needy ‘kids.’

Sorry, this is the first thing I thought of – Al Wilson’s 1969 song “The Snake”:

Ronald and Penelope Jones were foster parents for 268 “children.” Photo: Facebook

Of course we have to wonder if they were even kids when they got into the UK, but that’s a story for another day….

Here is just one of many accounts today of what is going on with the latest UK Islamic terror investigation.

From Sky News:

Two men who are believed to have been fostered by the same couple are being questioned by police over the Parsons Green bombing.

Police investigating the Parsons Green Tube bombing are questioning two suspects after searching three properties over the weekend.

An 18-year-old was arrested at Dover ferry port on Saturday morning and a 21-year-old was arrested at a fried chicken shop in Hounslow, west London, on Saturday night. Neither have been named.

Screenshot (847)

Syrian refugee being questioned.  Balding 21-year-old (!) was Facebook friends with Penelope.

The younger man is suspected of planting the device, which exploded on a District Line train in London on Friday morning, injuring 30 people.

He and the other man, reported to be from Syria, are being questioned by police on suspicion of offences under the Terrorism Act.

Both men are believed to have spent time in the care of Penelope and Ronald Jones, who received MBEs [Member of the Order of the British Empire—ed] for services to children and families in 2010.

[….]

…. the 18-year-old who has been held is understood to be an Iraqi orphan who had moved to Britain when he was 15.

More here.

Go here for my complete archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Hungary Built a Wall…Cuts Illegal Aliens By 99 Percent

European Attacks Show the Difficulty in Tracking Soaring Terror Suspect Numbers

Parsons Green terror: Foster couple in Tube bomb raid ‘took in Syrian and Iraqi refugees’

Parsons Green bucket bomb suspect named as Syrian refugee, 21, Yahya Faroukh

We want to go to Germany and make Muslim babies…