Economic Impact Of Super Bowl Dwarfs That Of Government Shutdown

It does sometimes feel as though many Americans actually think the success of the American economy is due to the behemoth in Washington, D.C., rather than in spite of it.

When Friday’s job’s numbers came out, they gobsmacked the media and economic experts, who were expecting 170,000 at the top end and were greeted with 304,000. But those figures were considerably less surprising to those of us who view the government as a hindrance to private enterprise and economic well-being — not an indispensable necessity.

Now an additional data point comes courtesy of Americans’ spending on last night’s Super Bowl — unarguably one of the most boring in history.

“American adults say they will spend an average $81.30 for a total of $14.8 billion as they watch the New England Patriots and the Los Angeles Rams meet up in the Super Bowl,” according to the annual survey by the National Retail Federation and Prosper Insights & Analytics conducted before Sunday’s game.

Meanwhile, the partial government shutdown cost the economy $11 billion, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO says that is due to lost output from federal workers, delayed government spending and reduced demand resulting from those first two. But the CBO goes on to say it is really nowhere near that high.

“Although most of the damage to the economy will be reversed as federal workers return to their jobs, the CBO estimated $3 billion in economic activity is permanently lost after a quarter of the government was closed for nearly 35 days,” CNBC reported, desperately trying to make it seem as though there was economic significance to the shutdown. Media use the big number in the headlines and leads, but it is irrelevant. Only the net number is what counts: $3 billion.

Even the CBO report’s narrative made clear that, despite hyperbolic media attention, the government shutdown was a big snoozer when it came to economic impact.

“Among those who experienced the largest and most direct negative effects are federal workers who faced delayed compensation and private-sector entities that lost business,” the report said. “Some of those private-sector entities will never recoup that lost income.”

So to get this straight. Four hours of football and an entertainment halftime show created nearly five timesas much economic activity as was lost due to the month-long partial government shutdown.

It’s almost as if hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats not showing up in big drab government buildings to push papers, regulate small businesses and grind things slowly for a month didn’t hurt the economy. In fact, based on the job numbers Friday, the bureaucrats’ absence may actually have boosted things.

One downside to note: About 17 million people are expected to call in sick today, the day after the Super Bowl, with the pigskin pox. I’m going to suggest a lot of that is hangover related. That, along with all of the conversations about the game during work hours, could hurt economic output by $4 billion.

The 17 million calling in sick sounds pretty solid. But the $4 billion in economic impact seems a bit squishy considering they are trying to quantify the economic impact of five minutes here and there on the game — when there is no AB comparison given that people engage in water cooler talk year-round.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

Minneapolis: Open Borders Agitators Organized and Active

On January 24th, a Minneapolis government employee led a public forum entitled “Immigrant Moral Witness, Moral Action.” 

I’m posting this for a couple of reasons. First, to show you once again how the Open Borders (really I should call them No Borders) activists are working to control the language.  The implication is that if you don’t agree with them, you are somehow immoral!

And, of course they are again trying to get the media and you to think about all immigrants (legal and illegal) as “New Americans.”

But, more importantly I want you to see that they are organized and have tips for the types of actions they want citizens to take. Are you getting organized?

From the MinnPost:

10 things you can do right now to help immigrants and refugees in Minnesota and beyond

Michelle Rivero
Rivero works for the taxpayers of Minneapolis at the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs

At last week’s “Immigrant Moral Witness, Moral Action” forum at First Universalist Church of Minneapolis, Michelle Riverowrapped up her presentation by talking about the importance of speaking out with love. Given her experience as an immigration attorney and as Minneapolis’ first-ever director of the newly created Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs (OIRA), Rivero said it was an emotional but necessary bit of information shared amid the rest of the night’s topics. Rivero expanded on her comments for MinnPost, and provided some nuts-and-bolts information for anyone interested in helping out in the face of how the federal government is treating asylum seekers and would-be new Americans.

[….]

“I strongly feel that if you are advocating for a position, it’s important to do so with sincerity, with honesty, with humility. If an issue is very important to you, and obviously immigration is very important to me, I think the more that we can all do to convince people of why the path that we feel we should be on is the right path, the better off we’ll be as a society. And I think when you do that with sincerity, even people who disagree with you, you can find commonalities with.

Now here (below) are Rivero’s ten tips for Minnesotan Open Borders activists. (It isn’t just more Somalis they are looking for!).

Read the whole MinnPost article for details because it will give you information you can use if your goal is to see immigration to the US (and to Minnesota) brought under control.  Knowledge is power!

1. Give money to organizations and causes.
2. Be a vocal advocate for the causes you support.
3. Support an organization working to provide support to asylum seekers at the border
4. Pay immigration bonds.
5. Learn about what your city is doing regarding immigration-related issues and ask how you can partner.
6. Send local immigration attorneys to the border.
7. Support the work of Clues and other social service organizations.
8. Be informed on immigration issues and issues that touch immigrants.
9. Support MIRAC (Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee).
10. Support Release MN8.

Read it all, here.

It is one thing to read news on the internet and to watch cable news, but are you talking to those around you and getting politically organized? They are!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

Will Starbucks Values Hit the Campaign Trail in 2020?

Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, tweeted his interest in running for president of the United States… as an independent.

Now, with an outspoken CEO who regularly leveraged his position to push an agenda, Starbucks could hardly be considered a centrist entity under Schultz’s leadership—that would essentially require neutrality on the issues, or at least some semblance of playing both sides. Looking at Starbucks’ long receipt of liberal activism over the years, you can understand why we view this new-found moderation with healthy skepticism.

After his voluntary departure in 2000, Schultz returned in 2008 after the company reported serious financial troubles. The return also marked a jumpstart in the activism that has earned Starbucks a 2ndVote score of 1 (Liberal).

During his second tenure, Schultz told Christian shareholders to take a hike if they didn’t agree with the company’s support for same-sex marriage. Later that year, Starbucks banned all customers from legally carrying firearms in their stores.

Additionally, in what is surely a carry-over from Schultz’s time as CEO, the new Starbucks chief has been forced to defend his company’s financial support for abortion giant Planned Parenthood. 

Click here to see more on Starbucks’ support for the Paris Climate Accords, sanctuary cities, and more!

Obviously, conservatives are unlikely to cast their first vote for Schultz in 2020. What should concern the new leadership at Starbucks is the fact that they won’t cast their 2ndVote buying their coffee until the stain of activism is erased from the kitchens.

Hold Starbucks accountable by buying your coffee from these better alternatives.Contact Starbucks!

Reach Out to Starbucks on Facebook!

Help us continue highlighting how corporations support the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

Utica, NY and the New American Economy’s Propaganda

On January first, when I welcomed you to my new blog, I said my first priority was to counter the media reports that have begun to spew from the Open Borders propaganda machine about how migrants of all stripes are just the ticket for saving America’s economy while bringing the joys of diversity to you, the deplorables.

And so it is funny that this news from Utica, NY published yesterday is exactly what I warned about one month ago.

You will be seeing news like this from sea to shining sea in the lead-up to the 2020 Presidential contest.

The Cities Refugees Saved

Of course, I question the premise of the story from CityLab in the first place.  Why must we save a city that is no longer providing jobs or has been poorly run by Democrats for decades?

First just so you know here are the ‘brains’ behind the New American Economy propaganda machine. Tell me if this bunch has anything more on their minds than cheap immigrant labor and more Democrat voters!

screenshot (826)
CityLab calls the New American Economy, a bipartisan immigration reform group!

This is my post from earlier this month on the New American Economy.

CityLab reports that the New American Economy gang has teamed up (has hired) a film company to put together a film that will showcase Utica’s booming refugee-driven economy. (They love films!)

Utica church becomes mosque
Symbol of the NEW Utica: Historic Methodist Church becomes a mosque

Film maker Adam Bedient (director of photography and editor at Off Ramp Films) says he grew up nearby and it was just a dying city but now, joy of joys the Bosnian Muslims that Bill Clinton welcomed to America have turned the city around.

Now, he’s working on a full-length feature about the refugee communities in Utica, and when he drives through town, he finds it simmering with new life. Old buildings are getting refurbished. Construction cranes bob up and down. And at the center of town is a long-vacant historic Methodist church that has been renovated and converted into a beautiful mosque—a symbol of the new Utica.

The CitiLab story goes on to report how the city is thriving. You can read it yourself.

When you see news like this, look to see if they have included any mention of problems, like the one I reported at Refugee Resettlement Watch in 2015 about the school funding crisis when the city of Utica sued the state of New York for a refugee-created school funding shortfall.

See if they mention anything about dollars from Washington (from you) that fuel the local ‘new American’ economy via welfare—food stamps, housing subsidies, healthcare, federal grants for myriad refugee/immigrant services, grants to non-profits that service migrants and so forth.

In other words , is Utica a prime example of simply shifting federal tax dollars to a dying city?

Screenshot (858)
Useful graphic from the story.  Heads up if you live in one of those cities, you might be next for a propaganda film about your growing refugee population. At RRW I wrote about problems in almost every one of them!

CityLab goes on (as expected) to bash the President and White House policy staffer Stephen Miller saying they don’t know what they are talking about when they express concerns about the cost of more refugee resettlement or any issues of safety and security.  You can read it all here.

The story wraps with a quote from Bedient about that on-going debate,

This kind of wrangling over the true impact of refugees doesn’t get much traction in Utica, where refugees now make up almost a quarter of the city’s population, Bedient says. It’s not really up for debate at this point—“it’s a part of the city’s identity now,” he says.

Bottomline, the New American Economy and the Open Borders cabal have decided, there is no longer any debate, so shut up!

Here is what I don’t get!

Utica, has been paraded out for over a decade as a city saved by refugees, but no group on the immigration control side of the debate has ever (to my knowledge) gone to Utica to investigate the claims and counter them. Why is that? 

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission.

World-Wide Threat Assessment Makes Powerful Case For Border Security

Timing is everything. Congress is currently in the midst of debating the construction of a “border wall” or “border barrier” to protect the dangerous U.S./Mexican border as the clock ticks down to another possible partial shutdown of our government if an agreement cannot be reached.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats that was predicated on a just-released paper, “World-Wide Threat Assessment,” that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.

As we will see, elements of that report addressed issues that have a clear nexus to border security and immigration law enforcement.

However, the leaders of the Democratic Party have thus far made it clear that they will oppose any and all efforts to construct a barrier to block the uninspected entry of aliens and cargo into the United States while simultaneously claiming that they don’t oppose border security — even as some Democrats call for disbanding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

While the Democratic Party leaders claim that a wall or barrier on the southern border is a waste of money and find all sorts of other absurd excuses to oppose it, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi outrageously and infamously claiming that any such structure would be “immoral,” the leaders of the U.S. Border Patrol as well as the leaders of the Border Patrol Council, the union that represents our valiant Border Patrol agents, have publicly and repeatedly stated that a wall or barrier is essential to help them to secure our nation’s borders.

Clearly the Democrats have no interest in actually securing our borders or in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Now we come to that hearing conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the report that served as the predication for that hearing.

Inasmuch as the report contains material furnished by all of the elements of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the leaders of these agencies were witnesses at the hearing.

This is the Witness List:

Director Daniel Coats
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
ODNI

Director Christopher Wray
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FBI

Director Gina Haspel
Central Intelligence Agency
CIA

Director General Robert Ashley
Defense Intelligence Agency
DIA

Director General Paul Nakasone
National Security Agency
NSA

Director Robert Cardillo
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
NGA

Several areas of concern about national security vulnerabilities addressed in the report have a clear and unmistakable nexus to immigration, border security and related issues.

Page 4 of the report included this paragraph:

Migration is likely to continue to fuel social and interstate tensions globally, while drugs and transnational organized crime take a toll on US public health and safety. Political turbulence is rising in many regions as governance erodes and states confront growing public health and environmental threats.

Page 10 included the following excerpt:

TERRORISM

Sunni Violent Extremists

Global jihadists in dozens of groups and countries threaten local and regional US interests, despite having experienced some significant setbacks in recent years, and some of these groups will remain intent on striking the US homeland. Prominent jihadist ideologues and media platforms continue to call for and justify efforts to attack the US homeland.

Page 18 of the report focuses on Transnational Criminal Organizations and provided vital information about drug trafficking and human trafficking.

Here is an excerpt of the material provided in this chapter of the report:

TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

Global transnational criminal organizations and networks will threaten US interests and allies by trafficking drugs, exerting malign influence in weak states, threatening critical infrastructure, orchestrating human trafficking, and undermining legitimate economic activity.

Drug Trafficking

The foreign drug threat will pose continued risks to US public health and safety and will present a range of threats to US national security interests in the coming year. Violent Mexican traffickers, such as members of the Sinaloa Cartel and New Generation Jalisco Cartel, remain key to the movement of illicit drugs to the United States, including heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cannabis from Mexico, as well as cocaine from Colombia. Chinese synthetic drug suppliers dominate US-bound movements of so- called designer drugs, including synthetic marijuana, and probably ship the majority of US fentanyl, when adjusted for purity.

Approximately 70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, a record high and a 10-percent increase from 2016, although the rate of growth probably slowed in early 2018, based on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data.

Increased drug fatalities are largely a consequence of surging production of the synthetic opioid fentanyl; in 2017, more than 28,000 Americans died from synthetic opioids other than methadone, including illicitly manufactured fentanyl. The CDC reports synthetic opioid- related deaths rose 846 percent between 2010 and 2017, while DHS reports that US seizures of the drug increased 313 percent from 2016 to 2017.

Other Organized Crime Activities

Transnational criminal organizations and their affiliates are likely to expand their influence over some weak states, collaborate with US adversaries, and possibly threaten critical infrastructure.

Mexican criminals use bribery, intimidation, and violence to protect their drug trafficking, kidnapping-for-ransom, fuel-theft, gunrunning, extortion, and alien-smuggling enterprises.

Gangs based in Central America, such as MS-13, continue to direct some criminal activities beyond the region, including in the United States.

Transnational organized crime almost certainly will continue to inflict human suffering, deplete natural resources, degrade fragile ecosystems, drive migration, and drain income from the productive—and taxable—economy.

Human trafficking generates an estimated $150 billion annually for illicit actors and governments that engage in forced labor, according to the UN’s International Labor Organization.

This is not the first report or the first hearing to provide clear evidence that the porous U.S./Mexico border creates national security, public safety, and public health vulnerabilities for Americans.

I have written a number of articles about this issue; one of my recent articles took on the bogus claim that technology is better than a wall: “Why Trump’s Wall Is A Must” – And why a “virtual fence” will stop no one.

My May 11, 2018 article, “Congressional Hearing: Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S.,” was predicated on a hearing conducted by the House Homeland Security Committee.

A failure to stop the flow of illegal alien workers also undermines the U.S. economy, and costs American and lawful immigrant workers jobs and suppresses their wages. That fundamental fact was the basis for my commentary, “OPEN BORDERS FACILITATE AMERICA’S RACE TO THE BOTTOM” – “Cheap labor” is anything but cheap.

As I have noted ever so many times in my articles and in my Congressional testimony, simply securing the problematic border against the illegal (uninspected) entry of aliens won’t end the immigration crisis but would close one of the major holes in what I have come to refer to as the Immigration Colander. I have come to conceptualize the wall on the U.S./Mexican border as the equivalent of a wing on an airplane. Without a wing the airplane will not fly, but the wing by itself would go nowhere.

The immigration system has never had a meaningful program to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States. The need to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States is commonsense and was noted as an important issue by the 9/11 Commission. The dirty secret is that our political leaders understand just how important interior enforcement is but have intentionally never provided the resources to enforce those laws from within the interior. Consider that, in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11 President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS ) and in so doing, broke the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into multiple components that then blended immigration with other agencies such as Customs.

However, while the leadership of neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been willing to take the necessary measures to finally save the immigration crisis through effective but fair law enforcement, unhinged members of the Democratic Party are now calling for dismantling ICE altogether. They are calling for immigration anarchy even as yet another hearing, involving the leaders of the U.S. intelligence community, are clear about the nexus between threats confronting America and border security and immigration law enforcement.

Meanwhile cities and states that are controlled by the Democrats have created “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” that shield illegal aliens from detection from ICE including criminals, members of transnational gangs and drug trafficking organizations. These jurisdictions also shield international fugitives and terrorists and, in shielding aliens who were smuggled into the United States, protect the human traffickers who smuggled them here.

If these politicians were really concerned about the plight of trafficked aliens, they could cooperate with ICE and make certain that ICE provides these aliens with visas that are available for aliens who cooperate with investigations into human trafficking and major crimes.

As we have seen with the trial of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, New York City — the American city with the largest, best-trained and -equipped police department in the United States — became the hub for the Mexican Sinaloa Drug Cartel that purportedly moved hundreds of tons of drugs including heroin, cocaine, meth, fentanyl, and marijuana into the U.S. across the Mexican border.

The only rational reason that NYC would have been selected as the hub, given the nature and reputation of the NYPD is the fact that NYC is a “Sanctuary City.” This was the focus of my article, “NEW YORK CITY: HUB FOR THE DEADLY DRUG TRADE” – “Sanctuary” policies attract foreign drug traffickers, fugitives and terrorists.

For far too long America has been bleeding red (blood) and green (money). Truly secure borders wold represent a giant step on the road to resolving the immigration crisis. Failure to secure the border costs innocent lives, each and every day.

RELATED ARTICLE: Unapologetic Baker Reintroduces ‘Build The Wall’ Cookies, Sells Them By The Dozen

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column with images is republished with permission.

The President’s Unconventional Path To A Wall And Electoral Victory

On Friday, relatively unexpectedly, President Trump announced a deal that would temporarily end the partial federal government shutdown. Under the terms of the deal, Congress would pass a continuing resolution funding the government for three weeks. During that time, according to the President, Democrats and Republicans would work out a deal bringing about a solution to border security inclusive of erecting a wall at the United States’ southern border.

The plan, of course, assumes that the Democrats would faithfully negotiate a solution to America’s border security issues. But we know, of course, that the Democrats neither desire a wall nor negotiate in good faith. Moreover, the President made a tactical error in signaling that if an appropriate resolution were not made in the next three weeks he may use his emergency powers to build the wall anyway.

We can safely predict that the Democrats would relish cornering the President into employing his emergency powers for the construction of a southern wall because they know that a hostile judiciary would kill the President’s wall project even if the Supreme Court leans conservative.

In the eyes of the Democrats, the long road towards killing the President’s wall is now wide open, and they intend to take it.

So what should the President do? Truth is, the President has a path that likely leads to building the wall, and almost certainly, to his reelection, and he too must take it.

Now, I acknowledge that President Trump does look a little tired, like a prizefighter in the eighth round that has taken his share of body punches and a few too many jabs to the face. The President is tired from seven rounds of abuse, and he is wondering if he can take another eight rounds. Suffice it to say, that the President needs a couple of days to recharge his batteries and remind himself of the immeasurably noble reasons he has undertaken this venture and the incredible accomplishments he has already realized.

What’s more, the President is right; border security is a matter of fundamental importance to the nation’s stability and safety, and it is proper for him to expend whatever energies necessary to solving a problem regarding which Congress has been negligent for decades.

President Trump’s strength lies in the grassroots. This President is backed by a slew of patriotic, hard-working people who have been begging for a fight. In fact, the only reason the President was elected is because that group wanted to fight. The President therefore needs to let them.

Just like in the midterm elections, the President needs to hold a series of rallies (at least three times a week) in stadiums all across the country where the multitudes enthusiastically and continuously chant, “Build the wall! Build the wall!!”

Second, during these rallies, the President needs to explain that he has done everything the Democrats have asked to solicit their cooperation. He needs to tell of all the deals he has worked, all the offers he has made, and how he has reopened the government for the purposes of making sure Congress accomplishes the mission of addressing border security, since after all, that’s exactly what the Democrats, and even some Republicans in Congress, said needed to happen.

Next, at every rally, he must blame the Democrats for any future government shutdown. Remember, the media have hung the shutdown albatross around President Trump’s neck. But this argument is no longer applicable. By reopening the government, Trump has also reset the culpability analysis, and in this sport, whoever can blame the other more effectively wins.

President Trump must come out of the gates saying that if this deal does not happen, then the consequences of their negligence is completely on the Democrats’ back. He must explain that we have seen the deleterious effects of a government shutdown. We have seen the suffering of those furloughed workers who, by the way, the Democrats never cared enough to allow back to work. We have seen, he must tell them, of the dilapidated state of our national parks and the disruption to our airports. We have also seen the humanitarian crisis that the continuing dereliction in Congress’s duties in solving the nation’s immigration problem has caused.

The Democrats know this, he must explain, and they have it in their power to solve the immigration problem and the issue of funding the government. And if they don’t, then it will be 100% on the Democrats.

And lastly, if the Democrats fail to come to terms, under no circumstances does the President reopen the government nor does he use his emergency powers to build the wall, because after all, the erection of a wall through the Presidential emergency powers will be insufficient to solve the calamity that exists at our southern border nor will it address the thousands of people that reside in this country illegally through visa overstays.

The President has done a great job at bringing the problem of our border security to the forefront of the American psyche, and with that has come a brilliant opportunity to permanently solve this blemish on our nation and its policies.

As far as the President is concerned, if the Democrats do not deliver, he rides their failure all the way to his re-election. And then we’ll see what strength-of-will the American people, and more importantly, that subgroup of Americans who fundamentally care about the future of our country, possess.

RELATED VIDEO: Why Trump Won.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

10 U.S.C. § 284: The Law That Will Build The Wall

Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) asked the Under Secretary for Policy John Rood several key questions that confirm that President Trump can build the wall without declaring a state of emergency or the need for Congress to pass any bill. The answer is 10 U.S.C. § 284.

Watch:

TRANSCRIPT

BROOKS: I want to direct your attention to 10 United States Code § 284 which authorizes President Trump to deploy the United States military to the southern border to build fences and to do a lot of other things, and for clarity, if you look it up in the dictionary the word fence includes the word barrier and the word barrier includes walls made of a wide variety of different materials.

So that having been said, it seems to me that 10 U.S. Code § 284 can be used by the President of the United States to direct the United States military to build a wall. Now as of today, you’ve mentioned military forces along the southern border, have any of them been deployed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284?

ROOD: Congressman, I don’t believe any of our forces have been deployed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284. You are correct, however, that that use of authority would authorize the secretary of defense to erect barriers, roads, fencing, those types of materials to disrupt drug smuggling.

BROOKS: Does 10 U.S.C. § 284 as you understand it, require the declaration of a national emergency before it is implemented?

ROOD: No.

BROOKS: It does not?

ROOD: No.

BROOKS: Has President Trump, to your knowledge, ever used 10 U.S.C § 284 to direct the military to build the wall that is necessary for border security?

ROOD: No, not to my knowledge, Congressman.

BROOKS: If President Trump were to direct the Pentagon and the United States military pursuant to 10 U.S.C § 284 to build such barriers as are necessary to secure our southern border from drug trafficking and international crime cartels would the United States military obey that order?

ROOD: If we judge it to be a lawful order, yes sir. And I assume it would be.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Dorian Hurst on Unsplash.

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Says State Of The Union Guests Will Be ‘Border-Related’

President Donald Trump will invite guests related to the ongoing situation at the U.S. southern border during his State of the Union address, he told The Daily Caller in an exclusive Oval Office interview Wednesday.

“I will say that some of them will be border-related, some of them will be people who have suffered very badly because we didn’t do what we should’ve done in a very dangerous part of our country, and so that’s going to be a part of it, absolutely,” Trump said when asked for an exclusive preview of his State of the Union guests.

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress inside the House Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 30, 2018. REUTERS/Win McNamee/Pool

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress inside the House Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 30, 2018. REUTERS/Win McNamee/Pool

The president then scheduled a meeting in front of The Daily Caller with his senior staff for the next day to discuss that very matter.

Trump said of the address that while some of it will focus on the border crisis, other parts will touch on economic progress in the United States, saying:

At the same time, the world is not doing well and we’re going great. You look at the numbers, we’re hitting highs. I get no credit for it. It’s like, when do you ever hear them talking about — we just hit 25,000 and you won’t even hear a thing about it. If President Obama were there — and don’t forget, he was paying no interest. We’re actually paying interest. You know, he was paying no interest. He didn’t have liquidity being drained out of the market in order to pay down, which we have. How about $50 billion a month? $50 billion a month.

If I had a no-interest, no-liquidity situation with respect to the market, I mean, forget it. It would actually be incredible the numbers. Big difference. Tremendous difference.

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF DAILY CALLER INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

THE DAILY CALLER: Stephen Paddock, the shooter in Las Vegas in 2017. The FBI just closed its investigation yesterday without determining any motive. But don’t you think Americans deserve to know why so many people died in the worst mass shooting in modern history?

POTUS: It was a horrible event. He was a very, very sick person, obviously. It was very unusual in that there didn’t seem to be your standard set of reasons as to why this would happen. I’m a little surprised that the report wasn’t much longer but at the same time I can understand it. It was just a — just a terrible thing. They were unable to find a real reason other than, obviously, he was sick and they didn’t know it.

So, I was a little surprised and a lot disappointed that they weren’t able to find the reason. Because you’d like to find a reason for that.

THE DAILY CALLER: Were you following the developments through that case?

POTUS: I was watching it like everybody else. I thought it was horrible. I went to the hospital, I saw many of the victims and right after the event it was horrible. It was inconceivable. But he was a very sick person and nobody would’ve known it. Nobody had any idea. He had money — or at least they think he had money. He was a gambler, you know, you don’t see too many gamblers that have money.

I think they worked very hard. I will tell you they worked very hard on that case. They just were unable to find anything from all of the facts. Because I’ve looked at some of the things also and it was a very unusual case of a very sick person who just, people never saw that coming.

THE DAILY CALLER: Speaking of the FBI, sir, were you comfortable with the way and the force that was used against the raid in Roger Stone’s house? Do you think that was appropriate for your FBI to be doing that in a white collar case?

POTUS: I thought it was very unusual. You know, I’ve stayed out of that whole situation so that — because there was no collusion whatsoever. There was no nothing done wrong and frankly, I could have waded in very early, I could have ended it very easily if I wanted to but just let it run its course.  But I will say, like, I’m speaking for a lot of people that were very disappointed to see that go down that way, to see it happen where it was on camera, on top of it.

That was a very, very disappointing scene — 

THE DAILY CALLER: You thought it was unusual that CNN was there?

POTUS: — You have 29 people and you have armored vehicles and you had all of the other and, you know, many people know Roger, and Roger is not a person that they would have to worry about from that standpoint. I thought it was sad to see it.

THE DAILY CALLER: Would you ask the FBI to review its use of force, its militarization when it handles cases like this?

POTUS: I think it’s a good question for you to ask, and it’s something I’ll think about.

THE DAILY CALLER: One last question related to that. On the Paddock case, all of America was really interested to find out what happened there.

POTUS: Including me.

THE DAILY CALLER: Of course. And I wonder how many resources in the FBI were committed to the Paddock case versus committed to the Mueller investigation. How much money was spent? How many people were on those things? How do those two things compare?

POTUS: What a great question that is. It’s one of the better questions. I hope you’re going to play your question because that is a very, very interesting — you’re talking about, I guess they’re well over 30 million dollars now on this Russian collusion hoax, and everybody knows it’s a hoax. They’ve spent all this money. Nothing. No phone calls, no meetings, no nothing. You look at it, and you say, isn’t that sad to have devoted this time, this energy over a — you know, look, there’s been numerous books written right now, including number one best sellers, calling it a “hoax.” And it is very sad. That is very sad. By the way, to me, both very sad events.

But that is very interesting to ask, where you’ve had so many people killed, and so badly wounded, because I went to the hospital. You had people so badly wounded. People never talk about the wounded. The level of hurt and devastation for a whole lifetime. You know, many people just devastated for a lifetime. They’ll never be the same. And you look at that by comparison to the Russian hoax, it’s a shame. The Russian witch hunt, it’s a shame.

THE DAILY CALLER: Speaking of that, sir, Matt Whitaker came out I think a couple of days ago. He said that the Mueller probe seems to be wrapping up, generally. Has he communicated that to you?

POTUS: No. No, I haven’t spoken to him about that. I would say that I think after almost two years it certainly should be. Process crimes or process, you know, questions, the answer is different than what you thought it might be and some people say they lost their memory or a lack of memory, which a lot of people can understand that too.

No, I never spoke to him about that.

THE DAILY CALLER: So Whitaker or whoever is heading as the attorney general at the time will get to make a decision about releasing the report that Mueller sends him —

POTUS: I don’t know what —

THE DAILY CALLER: Is that the kind of thing you’ll sign off on if and when it comes to that decision?

POTUS: They’ll have to make their decision within the Justice Department. They will make the decision as to what they do. I could’ve taken a much different stance, I could’ve gotten involved in this, I could’ve terminated everything. I could’ve ended everything. I’ve chosen to stay out of it. But I had the right to, as you know, I had the right if I wanted to to end everything. I could’ve just said, ‘that’s enough.’ Many people thought that’s what I should do.

THE DAILY CALLER: You know, Andrew McCarthy has made the case that the reason Comey was recommended to be fired by Rod Rosenstein is that he went out in public and he made a public indictment of Hillary Clinton without actually recommending a prosecution.

In other words, he made a character indictment of her in the court of public opinion. In Andrew McCarthy’s view, if this report comes out from Mueller and it does anything to try and go after you for any reason that doesn’t have any criminality involved, that would be a disservice to you. That’s not justice if the Justice Department is trying to say things to hurt your character but they don’t have anything to do with criminality.

POTUS: Well, I never had anything to do with the Russians having to do with this. I ran a great campaign. I ran a campaign that now they say was better than that gentleman’s [Andrew Jackson’s] campaign in the 1800s and we did a great job.

And we got 306 to 223 and that’s that. Won states that nobody thought were possible to win. Remember the expression, ‘he cannot get to 270.’ And we got way beyond 270.

And I don’t even say she ran a bad campaign. I think I ran a very good campaign.

THE DAILY CALLER: Well the people who elected you are very interested in the immigration decision and what’s going on with this negotiation. Republicans in charge of Congress for two years didn’t get to your wall promise in Congress. How big of a roadblock to wall funding was Paul Ryan now that he’s gone?

POTUS: Well, I was going to veto the omnibus bill and Paul told me in the strongest of language, ‘Please don’t do that, we’ll get you the wall.’ And I said, ‘I hope you mean that because I don’t like this bill,’ although I love the bill for what it did for the military. And therefore, if it weren’t for the military I would have vetoed it.

Just so you understand, our military needed funding desperately. Totally depleted. And this bill was great for the military. Had I vetoed it, you would never have gotten the numbers back that I got: $700 and $716 billion over the last two years. Which is substantially more — much more than President Obama was able to get for the military.

So that was a negative but a big factor as to why that was the reason I signed it. But another very big factor was the fact that Paul told me in the strongest of terms that, ‘please sign this and if you sign this we will get you that wall.’ Which is desperately needed by our country. Humanitarian crisis, trafficking, drugs, you know, everything — people, criminals, gangs, so we need the wall.

And then he went lame duck. And once he went lame duck it was just really an exercise in waving to people and the power was gone, so I was very disappointed. I was very disappointed in Paul because the wall was so desperately needed. And it is. And I’ll get the wall.

THE DAILY CALLER: Did he lie to you? Did he play you?

POTUS: I don’t want to say he lied. I think he probably meant it at the time, I guess. I hope. So I don’t call that lying. But when he went lame duck, meaning, he said he’s not running again — and it was very unusual because usually they’ll do that sometime after an election and he didn’t want to do that because it’s somewhat misrepresenting and I understand that too. But maybe you don’t run, okay? Maybe you just don’t run. And he had an excellent person taking his place in Congress, he ran a great campaign, did a really good job.

So Paul said, ‘please sign the omnibus bill.’ Now, in all fairness to Paul, I may have signed it anyway because it was so much more money than anyone ever thought possible for the military, and equal to the wall and maybe even greater than the wall was my promise to refurbish the military.

You know, I made many statements, many promises. In fact, here are some of them, folks. But those are some of the things we’ve accomplished. VA choice, VA accountability — you know, these are things that for decades and decades and I got a lot of these things. Tax cuts, regulation cuts by far the most that anybody’s ever got, biggest tax cuts. And that’s why you look at the market — we just hit over 25,000. We’re back where we were, right?

So anyway, that’s the story.

THE DAILY CALLER: One thing that some conservatives are worried about is that you’re prepared to give away some status for illegal immigrants in exchange for the things that you want. So when it comes to DACA, in these negotiations that are going on on Capitol Hill, how far are you willing to go there?

POTUS: So I don’t know if you saw — you know, there was a couple of days ago, ‘he’s going to give up DACA, he’s going to —’

First of all, it’s not mine to give up right now because DACA is going to the Supreme Court, hopefully. But miraculously, and horribly, they lost DACA. This was a case that President Obama said, essentially, he doesn’t have the right to sign. But they went, as usual, to the Ninth Circuit and they won a case, they won an appeal, and now it’s hopefully going to the Supreme Court soon because this is a very important case.

We should win that case easily, you know, it should be won.

Now, if it is won, then we’ll talk about DACA but right now — when that case was lost we were very close to making a deal. And then a judge in the Ninth Circuit agreed that President Obama, although President Obama didn’t think he had a right to do it, he said that — as soon as that was done, I said, ‘that’s the end of that deal.’

We had a deal for some DACA — for a lot of things. But we had a deal done and I said to people when that case was lost — well, it wasn’t lost permanently, I think we’re going to ultimately win — that’s the time I want to talk about it.

THE DAILY CALLER: So DACA is tabled until the court resolves it?

POTUS: Well I said to people, I saw yesterday, ‘well, what about DACA,’ I said, ‘it’s highly unlikely.’ I was tougher than anybody else on that. I could see doing something for DACA but I want to find out what the Supreme Court’s gonna do first.

THE DAILY CALLER: Chuck Schumer said he doesn’t want the White House playing a role in negotiations on Capitol Hill—

POTUS: I don’t blame him.

THE DAILY CALLER: How much of a role are you going to play? 

Because he doesn’t want me to make the deal. He doesn’t want to make me — because my idea of a deal is different than other people’s. Without our involvement a deal’s not going to get done and I think we’re going to — look, that deal. Look, there are numerous things we could do, including declaring a national emergency where we have very good law on our side, including the fact that I’m already building a tremendous amount of wall. People don’t realize that.

I’m going to be announcing the exact numbers but I’ll have over a hundred miles of wall either built or under construction between new and renovated. Over a hundred miles. We have a tremendous amount of money right now to build a wall. We’re building the wall. I’ll be announcing some numbers on — but in addition to that we declare a national emergency if this doesn’t work out.

THE DAILY CALLER: I believe you have a military base in Yuma, Arizona. Are you going to do some wall there? Is that the plan?

POTUS: We have, I believe, that area — yes. We have a tremendous problem in that area.

It’s very interesting, California, You know, they always say, ‘don’t build a wall,’ well, they were begging me to build a wall over in San Diego. The day I finished they said, ‘don’t build a wall.’ But they were begging me to build the wall because people were pouring in through that border, through that area.

We built a brand new wall. That’s not a renovated wall, that’s a brand new wall. We took down the old wall, we built a brand new wall. It’s fantastic, looks great, they did a great job, totally stopped everybody from coming in. The day we completed it California started saying, ‘don’t build a wall, we don’t want a wall.’ They want drones, right? Flying up around.

THE DAILY CALLER: You talked about the courts, sir. Are you keeping an eye right now on Justice Ginsburg’s health?

POTUS: Well, look, I hope that she’s healthy, I hope she’s happy, and I hope she lives for a long time.

THE DAILY CALLER: Would you commit to replacing her with somebody who was on that list — somebody like Amy Barrett who a lot of conservatives have looked at?

POTUS: Well I’ve been very religious. I’ve very much confined myself to that list, as you know. And that list has great people on it and I would say it’s highly likely I would stay. I think one of the things —

THE DAILY CALLER: But Amy Barrett would be a choice?

POTUS: No, she would certainly be a choice. I think anybody on that list would be a choice. They’re great people. I’ve been told, and I don’t know that that’s true, I would be surprised if it’s true, but a lot of people said that list was one of the reasons I won.

Because, being a non-politician, where you don’t have a record of choosing people, people just didn’t know who I would choose. And Supreme Court, especially for the Republican Party, it seems, was very, very important and I came up with the idea of a list of 20 and then I increased it to 25, 25 people and they’re very outstanding people. I felt so badly that Justice Kavanaugh had to go through what he had to go through but now he’s a Supreme Court justice and he’s going to be a great one.

Justice Gorsuch went through much easier and he’s going to be a great one.

THE DAILY CALLER: And in that process you had to deal with a couple of Democratic senators: Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein. And the report is that you have agreed or the White House has agreed, your White House counsel, to giving Democrats a say in who gets to be on the Ninth Circuit.

There’s a Wall Street Journal editorial about this and so people like Erick Erickson have come out and have criticized this decision because they’re saying you’re basically giving up two seats on the Ninth Circuit when you’re not renominating the people from before.

POTUS: Well, I know nothing about it. That I can tell you. I would not do it. I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t do that.

In fact, you can tell them for the first time, I will not do that. It’s a false report.

I’ve had many false reports from the Wall Street editorial board. Like, as an example, right now we’re negotiating with China. We’re doing very well. Wall Street — they don’t like tariffs. If we didn’t have tariffs they wouldn’t even be talking to us. They would not even be talking to us. You understand that?

THE DAILY CALLER: Well, on that issue, let me ask you about China. At the end of this, if there is not intellectual property protections in the deal, will you push the tariffs?

POTUS: Well, what happens is that right now China’s paying 25 percent on $50 billion worth of goods. Mostly high technology. And I was going to charge them 25 percent on $200 billion worth of goods and then I’d have $267 billion leftover where I’m not charging them anything. At their request, and subject to this deal until March 1st, I’m charging them 10 percent on 200 billion. You’ve got the 50 and the 25, then you’ve got 200 and I’m charging them 10 percent until March 1st. After March 1st it will go up to 25 percent.

So yeah, that’s very important to me.

You know, billions of dollars are being poured into our treasury. Billions. We never had five cents come into our treasury. Now we have billions of dollars and in addition, and very importantly…

The president returns to the issue of the Ninth Circuit court.

POTUS: The Ninth Circuit is so much in one direction that you couldn’t make that deal. Look, I’ve lost … the United States has lost so many cases in the Ninth Circuit and, you know, I had an argument — a slight argument, which, I think was not too much of an argument — with Justice Roberts about the Ninth Circuit. If I did that, what are we doing? We have to catch up because we are so far behind on the Ninth Circuit. So I would never make that deal. And I can tell you, if it is made I would end it, but it wasn’t, you know, not that I know of.

No, the answer is: I would not do that. You don’t catch up by making those deals.

THE DAILY CALLER: Let me ask you about religious bigotry. I want to read a list to you first and then get your reaction because I think you’re going to want to react to this.

A number of high-profile Democrats have recently attacked people of faith for their religious beliefs.

POTUS: Terrible.

THE DAILY CALLER: You’ve got anti-Semitism in the leadership of the Women’s March, sitting members of Congress who’ve expressed or condoned anti-Semitism, attacks on Second Lady Karen Pence for teaching at a Christian school, attacks by Democratic senators on your judicial nominees for being Catholic or members of the Knights of Columbus, attacks on the boys of Covington Catholic High School for being Catholic and Trump supporters.

Does the Democratic Party have a crisis of bigotry and how should they handle it?

POTUS: I think it’s a crisis for our country because there’s never been a time — I saw where today, I believe it was a congressman, took ‘in God we trust’ — 

THE DAILY CALLER: ‘So help me God.’

POTUS: ‘So help me God.’ Took the phrase off of a document. And I said, ‘Where are we going?’

I think it’s a terrible thing for our country and I think it’s certainly a terrible thing for the Democrats because I don’t think they’re going to be able to get away with it.

THE DAILY CALLER: Another thing, sir, Virginia Gov. [Ralph] Northam actually right before this, suggested a mother who wants to have an abortion while in labor should instead be allowed to let her baby die after delivery if that’s her choice. Do you think that would be infanticide?

POTUS: I watched that this morning. I watched the person testifying and I felt it was terrible.

THE DAILY CALLER: The Virginia delegate?

POTUS: Yes. Do you remember during the debate I said Hillary Clinton was willing to rip the baby out of the womb just prior to birth? And I used the term ‘rip’? That’s what it is. That’s what they’re doing, it’s terrible.

THE DAILY CALLER: Do you think this is an embrace by the Democrats of this type of abortion agenda?

POTUS: I think this is going to lift up the whole pro-life movement like maybe it’s never been lifted before. And the pro-life movement is very much a 50-50, it’s a very 50-50 issue. Actually it’s gained a point or two over the years, but it’s been very much 49-51 and vice-versa. I think this really will lift up the issue because people have never thought of it in those terms. Cause she actually said, you know, the day of, virtually the day of birth.

THE DAILY CALLER: Northam suggested that today too.

POTUS: Oh did he? So he confirmed that?

THE DAILY CALLER: And he’s a pediatric neurosurgeon.

POTUS: I’m surprised that he did that. I’ve met him a number of times. I’m surprised that he said that. I saw the woman do it — who ever that was, was that the attorney general?

THE DAILY CALLER: She’s a delegate. Kathy Tran, a delegate in Virginia.

POTUS: So I was very, very surprised that they would say that and allow that.

THE DAILY CALLER: Could you give us an exclusive preview of the State of the Union? What can we expect? Who are the guests that are going to be in the gallery?

POTUS: Well, in fact, we’re making up a list very shortly.

But I will say that some of them will be border-related, some of them will be people who have suffered very badly because we didn’t do what we should’ve done in a very dangerous part of our country, and so that’s going to be a part of it, absolutely.

At the same time, the world is not doing well and we’re going great. You look at the numbers, we’re hitting highs. I get no credit for it. It’s like, when do you ever hear them talking about — we just hit 25,000 and you won’t even hear a thing about it. If President Obama were there — and don’t forget, he was paying no interest. We’re actually paying interest. You know, he was paying no interest. He didn’t have liquidity being drained out of the market in order to pay it down, which we have. How about 50 billion dollars a month? $50 billion a month.

If I had a no interest, no liquidity situation with respect to the market, I mean, forget it. It would actually be incredible, the numbers. Big difference. Tremendous difference.

THE DAILY CALLER: The Super Bowl this weekend, I just want to get you on that because you’re an NFL fan. I’m just going to stick to the Patriots here for a second. What makes Kraft, Brady, and Belichick so much better than everybody else and how are they always back in the big game?

POTUS: So, it’s talent, it’s chemistry — they have a great chemistry with each other — I mean, I like all three of them, as you know, I’m very good friends with them. Coach Belichick endorsed me, you remember that?

Belichick is so tough and Kraft is a great guy. The three of them they just have — how good was Brady, I mean, the last game? Not the last game, the last two games. Brady plays better under pressure than he does in a regular game. I mean, that last two minutes the way he was throwing the ball down the field — they were bullets.

And I’ve seen how hard that ball comes at you, those guys were doing a great job. They were catching that, you know? That ball is whipped.

THE DAILY CALLER: Have you noticed that all of the kneeling basically stopped this year and the ratings went up and the revenue went up? Is there any part of you that says, ‘Yeah, I won that fight’?  

POTUS: No, I don’t want to take credit for that. You know I get along very well with the NFL. I helped them in Canada, you know that story where they were having a dispute for many years with Canada. And as part of NAFTA, you know, the termination of NAFTA and the new — but as part of NAFTA, which is now the USMCA, I was able to get their dispute settled because they’re a great American company and I don’t want great American companies to have problems.

In fact, Commissioner [Roger] Goodell called me and he thanked me, you know, they were working on that thing for years. It was having to do with the advertisements for the Super Bowl, it was a long-term problem and I got it solved.

I think it’s great what they did, it looks like it’s straightened out. I think that may be famous last words, let’s see what happens, but I think in the end it really worked out great. And, you know what, their ratings went up along with — as that problem went down, their ratings went up.

THE DAILY CALLER: So you’re satisfied with Goodell’s performance? You don’t think he should go?

POTUS: No, I think — look, I think that worked out very well. I was very pleased that he called me to thank me for helping him with Canada and yeah, it looks good. And their games have really been good other than one call. It was a little bit — I feel badly, it was a great state that voted for me, Louisiana. I feel very badly for Louisiana because that was maybe the worst call I’ve ever seen but I guess there’s nothing they can do about that. And you might say it, I feel badly for Louisiana.

THE DAILY CALLER: One final one on 2020 if you don’t mind. Who is your dream candidate in 2020 to run against?

POTUS: Well so far a lot of them. I don’t mind. I think that there’s a lot of talk about — it looks like Elizabeth Warren has not caught on like they thought she would. She fell into a trap. It’s called the Pocahontas trap.

There’s so many of them. The truth is there are some I’d love to run against.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Says Democrats ‘Won’t Get Away’ with Religious Bigotry

Trump says Paul Ryan Reneged on Deal to Fund Wall for Omnibus Signature

Trump says DACA for Wall Deal ‘Highly Unlikely’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission.

Trump’s Agreement to Reopen Government was Not a Democrat Victory

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer couldn’t contain their glee when the President agreed last week to a short term continuing resolution to reopen the government for three weeks. But this was not a win for the Democrats and no one should interpret it that way. First, only a few agencies were shut down, so the constant hyping of the shutdown by the media was a deliberate effort to magnify the problem to assist their Democrat allies.

But since one of the agencies was the Department of Homeland Security, it not only forced the Border Patrol to work without pay, but began creating problems for travelers as TSA personnel began skipping work. Those people who did skip work — about 10 percent of the workforce — did not do that independently. You can be sure they got the green light from their union, the American Federation of Government Employees , which coordinated with congressional Democrats (read Pelosi & Schumer), to ramp up pressure on the president.

Of course this is yet another way Democrats demonstrate their utter disregard for the American people. They knew that a disruption in travel plans would make another great optic for their media allies, who had already begun hyping the “soup kitchen” narrative. Meanwhile, realizing the publicity opportunity, or perhaps wanting to stick it to President Trump, or both, DC restaurants began offering free food to those poor government workers!

The entire thing was a charade.

So President Trump realized this was not politically winnable, as more and more GOP members of Congress grew wobbly. So, in the interest of reducing hardship for government employees working without pay, and the deleterious impact the Schumer/Pelosi/union game was having on the American people, President Trump agreed to a temporary opening to give them a breather.

He was forced to do this because Democrat leaders are determined to put their interests ahead of those of the American people, no matter what. This is nothing new. Over 13,000 Americans have been killed by illegal aliens over the past few years, many more were raped and had other unconscionable crimes committed against them, but the bottomless selfishness of congressional Democrats, and the spineless Chamber of Commerce bathroom attendants of the Republican Party, have prevented any efforts to stem the tide of mass migration across our borders by illegal aliens.

Trump explained his reasoning in a Tweet on Friday:

Democrats have no interest in hearing from the Angel Moms who’ve lost children to illegal aliens. They are consumed with the effort to swamp our shores with enough future voters to secure for themselves a permanent majority without having to offer anything of value to the American people (because they have nothing of value to offer.)

When a few of the Angel Moms went to Nancy Pelosi’s office to confront her about her failure to support border protection, she hid behind a wall. Ironic, no? Former House Speaker Paul Ryan refused to allow a vote on wall funding. These people are despicable! How many lives would have been saved had they not been slaves to their own interests?

President Trump is the only leader in Washington who has shown any leadership. He did so again here. He did not bow to Pelosi and Schumer’s stonewalling. He relented to give those who suffered at the hands of the Democrats a chance to recover. Now he has given the Democrats what they wanted — insisting on negotiations after the government agencies affected by the shutdown were reopened.

The ball is now in the Democrats’ court. They can negotiate on the terms they demanded. But they won’t. Nancy and Chuck will continue to stonewall, spending the next three weeks showing their true nature. And as usual, the media will support them, and continues to magnify the false message that Trump “caved.” Just as it did with the Covington kids, Ben Shapiro’s comments about “baby Hitler” at the March for Life, and the Buzzfeed story on Michael Cohen that the Mueller team took the extraordinary step of refuting.

CNN just coincidentally happened to be at Roger Stone’s house when the FBI launched a pre-dawn raid with heavily armed SWAT teams typically used against terrorist hideouts and meth labs. For example, twelve police were involved in the drug raid in Houston on Monday, where five police were injured and two criminals killed. Meanwhile, twenty-nine heavily armed agents  participated in the raid against Stone, and netted them an old man in bathrobe and slippers – a real threat apparently. And to top it off, they forced his wife to stand outside in bare feet and a nightgown.

It is illegal for the FBI to coordinate with the media, but it plainly did here, alerting CNN beforehand. The whole shameful episode was conducted for the optics. This is the level of the Mueller team’s ethics.

Are they all so tone deaf that they don’t realize how ugly, out of touch, partisan and agenda-driven they look? So after 21 days, the government will shut down again. Having given Democrats everything they asked for and still facing resistance, President Trump will have every justification to declare a national emergency and begin building the Wall.

Trump’s legal authority to do so is unquestionable. That probably will not stop the unethical Democrats and their allies in the judiciary. Pelosi and Co. are already building a case for a legal challenge by Congress, and a parallel PR campaign to convince American voters that a wall is not in our interest and would “harm communities.” It’s a lot like Pelosi’s infamous “wrap-up smear” video, where she explains how they use the media to smear opponents.

But how many communities have been harmed by Congressional inaction? Are 13,000 homicides not enough; 30,000 rapes? If they really don’t understand the position President Trump has put them in, and continue to obstruct through illegal court challenges, it will be obvious to the public that their agenda is entirely self-serving and dangerous — ignoring public safety for their own partisan goals.

As Border Patrol agent Fernando Grijalva told CBS correspondent Mireya Villarreal on Friday, “I’ve seen six different presidents in the time that I’ve been with the Border Patrol, and this is the worst crisis that I’ve seen.” (Emphasis theirs.)

But President Trump has bent over backwards to try to make Washington work. This is why, despite the risk to his support among conservatives, he has made every effort to accommodate the partisans. With each day that passes, they have proven themselves unworthy of that generosity. President Trump will build the Wall, slapping them down as they so richly deserve. He reiterated his intention today, tweeting, “If the committee of Republicans and Democrats now meeting on Border Security is not discussing or contemplating a Wall or Physical Barrier, they are Wasting their time!”

One final note that might cheer you up. While all this controversy rages, the Wall is actually being built as we speak.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in The Daily Headlines. It is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

The Dire Urgency For Trump’s Wall

How national security, public safety, and Americans’ jobs are on the line.

Although the partial government shutdown has ended, temporarily, President Trump has made it clear that in three weeks he will again shut down part of the federal government if funding is not provided for the construction of the border wall/barrier.

The mainstream media has said that “conservative Republicans” are unhappy with the President for re-opening the government while Democratic politicians are claiming a victory in the battle over the construction of a border wall.

In fact, all Americans should stand behind the President and back his demands for a border wall.

Superficially it would appear that the battle is being waged over a simple difference of opinion to determine the best way to secure the problematic southern border of the United States. In fact, this is how the mainstream media is portraying this struggle.

However, there is far more going on and far more at stake than a difference of opinion.

The battle is actually being fought over the goals of President Trump versus the Democrats’ ultimate goals. The Democrats are at war not just with Trump, but with America and Americans, and are willing to sacrifice national security and public safety in order to attain their goals.

As we shall see, the Democrats have no desire to actually secure our borders and, in fact, have taken many steps to undermine border security and effective immigration law enforcement. Some Democrats have called for the dismantling of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) altogether.

We will explore this shortly, but let’s begin by noting that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction about the race, religion or ethnicity of aliens, only if their presence would undermine national security, public safety, public health and/or the livelihoods of Americans.

As I have noted in previous articles, an effective barrier along that troubled border would not prevent any people or commerce from entering the United States legally, but funnel all traffic to ports of entry where CBP inspectors can vet these aliens and create records of their entry into the United States and thus help to prevent the entry of alien criminals including members of the drug cartels, transnational gangs, fugitives from justice and international terrorists.

That threat was the focus of my commentary, Jihadis And Drug Cartel At Our Border.

Funneling all commerce through ports of entry would enable CBP inspectors to also screen vehicles and cargo to prevent contraband such as narcotics, weapons and counterfeit products from being smuggled into the United States.

This is vital for public safety, public health, and certainly for national security. The preface of the official report that was authored by members of the 9/11 Commission staff, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, began with this unambiguous paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Additionally, many illegal aliens enter the United States intent on working illegally in the United States so that they can send money back to their families in their home countries around the world. 

Securing the border against the entry of illegal alien workers and narcotics would enable the wall to pay for itself in a very short period of time as I noted in an earlier article, “America Needs A Border Wall Like Houses Need Insulation.”

Prior to World War II the U.S. Labor Department bore the primary responsibility for the enforcement and administration of our immigration laws. The concern was that foreign workers would displace American workers. Furthermore, aliens from Third World countries bring with them expectations of Third World wages and working conditions. When large numbers of such alien workers enter the labor force they consequently drive down wages and working conditions for American and lawful immigrant workers who are similarly employed.

It is beyond reason that the Democratic Party now stands united in opposition to the construction of a secure border structure even though the U.S. Border Patrol, through its leadership and the leadership of the union that represents America’s Border Patrol agents, have all publicly and unequivocally insisted that such a structure would be of huge assistance to them in securing our dangerous southern border.

The Democrats insist that walls are “old fashioned” and that in this day and age we should not erect walls but use drones and high-tech sensors. President Trump’s response was perfect. He said that wheels are also “old technology” but very effective.

During my January 22nd appearance on Fox & Friends I noted that a homeowner would not be likely to install a sophisticated burglar alarm on his/her home without also putting a secure front door on his/her home. Technology on the border without a barrier would be the equivalent of a house with a burglar alarm but without a locking front door to block the entry of an intruder.

The problem is that the Democratic Party of today is certainly not the Democratic Party of years past.

The old Democratic Party supported the concerns and aspirations of blue-collar Americans and sought to pass and enforce laws that protected these workers who are the backbone of America.

The new Democratic Party has turned on its traditional base, blue-collar and union workers, and is now intent on flooding America with a virtually unlimited number of foreign workers, although these illegal aliens are destroying job opportunities and wages for Americans. The Democrats seek to destroy the middle class to push millions of Americans to the left and thus to vote for them when they promise to provide financial assistance to struggling families.

The Democratic Party devised “Sanctuary Cities” that harbor and shield illegal aliens from detection by ICE agents in apparent violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324, which includes the following felonies:

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law;

The Democrats have also provided a plethora of economic incentives for illegal aliens by, for example, providing them with in-state tuition.

These actions certainly encourage huge numbers of illegal aliens to enter the United States, confident that once here, a growing number of municipalities and even states such as California and New York will go to extremes to shield them from ICE even if they are found guilty of committing crimes.

Although border barriers can be extremely effective and have been used successfully in countries around the world, Pelosi has referred to such a barrier as being “immoral,” and other politicians have referred to the barrier as being a “wall of hate.” 

Some have said that the Democrats are determined to prevent President Trump from keeping his campaign promise that formed his core platform during the election campaign.

Certainly there may be some truth in that, but let us not forget that the Democrats have been vocal in their opposition to immigration law enforcement even where transnational gangs and violent criminal aliens are concerned.

The consequences of uncontrolled immigration, the obvious goal of the Democratic Party would profoundly and irrevocably change America, and not for the better. 

Flooding America with cheap and exploitable foreign labor is certainly not an act of compassion but is immoral as well as illegal. It is also an act of national suicide. Labor is a commodity and when the market place is flooded with any commodity its value plunges.

Alan Greenspan, as I noted in a previous article, “Open Borders Facilitate America’s Race To The Bottom,” in testifying at a hearing conducted in 2009 by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee before Chuck Schumer, actually explained that making Americans compete with foreign workers for jobs in the high-tech industries would reduce the “wage premiums” being paid to American workers, whom he outrageously described as the “privileged elite,” to help reduce “wage inequality” between highly-skilled Americans with American workers who had lesser skills.

Greenspan, at that hearing, also acknowledged that illegal aliens would suppress the wages of the working poor, American workers who had not graduated from high school. Here is the sentence from his testimony:

Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.

Incredibly, Greenspan claimed that the economic gains would offset wage suppression and the costs that would be imposed on state and local governments.

Here is the irrevocable truth and likely reason for the Democrats’ opposition to border security: Open borders would irrevocably push economically-beleaguered Americans to the Democrats who promise to provide financial assistance to Americans who, through no fault of their own, could no longer survive without government assistance that the Democrats are happy to offer.

It would appear that the “long game” for the Democrats is to essentially create a one-party government by wresting political power from the Republicans.

The Democrats have to know that by not securing our borders America would be that much more vulnerable to international terrorists and transnational gangs and drug cartels but, for them, apparently, the carnage that would result is simply “collateral damage” as they seek political dominance.

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

Much of Border Wall Fight About Trump Resistance, Not Border Security

Politicians often clothe outrageous policies in reasonable rhetoric. President Donald Trump sometimes does the opposite, wrapping reasonable policy in careless rhetoric.

Remember his earlier call for a “Muslim travel ban”? The policy itself—temporary restrictions on travel from a half-dozen countries—was perfectly reasonable. As the ISIS caliphate collapsed, its fighters began fleeing to those nations, and Trump wanted to have measures in place to make sure they did not then come here.

Yet the president’s rhetoric helped fuel a bitter, partisan debate, which kept the policy in abeyance until a Supreme Court ruling restored common sense by upholding the ban.

His call for more border wall has sparked a similar dynamic. The political rhetoric on both sides of the debate frequently flies over the top, obscuring the practical rationale for the policy.

Border security needs have changed since Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Then, Homeland Security’s focus was to catch illegal border crossers and remove them before they “melted” into the interior.

Fences were erected in high-trafficked areas to deter or slow crossings, helping the border patrol to catch illegal immigrants within 100 miles of the border. (Deportation of those apprehended after being in the country more than two weekends or beyond 100 miles of the border is a much more laborious and costly process.)

The fencing was both an effective deterrent and a helpful enforcement tool, increasing the likelihood of expedited removal. As a result, illegal crossings declined.

But the threat to the border has evolved. Those crossing the border with children and claiming to be related as well as those claiming refugee status are not put in expedited removal. Both have become popular tactics to “beat” the system.

The only way to prevent abuse of the asylum process is to keep would-be immigrants on the other side of the border until 1) they submit formal asylum claims at official points of entry and 2) those claims have been evaluated.

Making that happen requires more and improved walls. Indeed, Trump’s wall policy reflects the advice of government’s border security professionals.

A similar request from any other president would be considered unremarkable. It’s controversial only because of the hyperpartisan, emotional political atmosphere that has characterized the Trump era.

Conversely, other arguments against the request don’t pass the common sense test.

One argument is that the border is not a problem. The real problem, they say, is visa overstays—people entering legally and then just not leaving.

Overstays have always been a huge problem and do, in fact, account for a large percentage of people here illegally. But part of the reason overstays are a larger share of the population is because border security is working better than it used to. And we should continue to make it work better.

One reason to worry more about border crossers than overstayers is because the latter at least got a visa to come here to begin with. That means they were screened for security, public safety, health, criminal, and public charge risks. Those crossing illegally haven’t been screened at all—making them a potentially higher-risk population.

At the end of the day, illegal border crossings and overstays are both problems. It’s not an either/or issue; good policy must address both.

Another weak argument suggests walls aren’t needed because drugs and other bad stuff are mostly smuggled through the ports of entry. There is truth in that, but smuggling also occurs elsewhere along the border. Again, good policy must address both dangers.

We actually need more border security to channel more smuggling attempts to ports of entry, because that is where we are best equipped to screen for bad things.

Perhaps the weakest argument against border walls is that they create a humanitarian crisis. Right now, legitimate refugees suffer because their cases are delayed due to the avalanche of false claims now clogging the system. Moreover, to take advantage of the “family” loophole, more and more children are being dragged to the border—often by a non-family member. This has created an epidemic of child endangerment.

Finally, wall opponents argue there are other things we should do to crack down on illegal immigration—from closing catch-and-release loopholes in the wall, to working with Latin American countries to stem the causes of illegal migration and combat criminal cartels.

Here, they are right. The administration should take all those steps. And it’s trying to do so. But the package proposed by the president complements these efforts. It is not one or the other.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of James Carafano

James Carafano

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research. Twitter: @JJCarafano.

RELATED ARTICLE: Podcast: Scott Rasmussen on Trump’s Poll Numbers and Some Surprising US Trends

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Pixabay.

VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi’s Wall by Laura Loomer

Laura Loomer published this short film about the current immigration crisis on America’s Southern border and the need for a border wall on the Southern border. Please watch:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Facebook page.

Trump Cave: Short-term Deal — NO WALL MONEY!

Within minutes after President Trump made his Rose Garden announcement that a “deal” was made to reopen the government the Democratic National Campaign Committee (DNCC.org) sent out the below email:

Watch the video of President Trump’s announcement:

A good friend of mine noted that “compromise is the art of losing slowly.” It now appears that President Trump is more interested in making a deal than keeping America safe by building the wall. Now making a deal is the art of losing slowly.

President Trump now has five options:

  1. Sign legislation passed by both houses of Congress that does not include the $5.7 billion to build the wall.
  2. Veto legislation passed by both houses of Congress that does not include the $5.7 billion to build the wall.
  3. Sign legislation passed by both houses of Congress that does include the $5.7 billion to build the wall.
  4. If Congress does not pass legislation that includes the $5.7 billion to build the wall then declare a national emergency and build the wall.
  5. Do nothing and let the current border situation continue to worsen.

The question is will President Trump, now that he has signed the temporary CR, demand that Pelosi keep her word and open up the House chambers for the State of the Union address?

As the DNCC.org email highlights, “Time for some accountability.” The House and Senate Democrats plan on holding Trump accountable. As they do and the legacy media parrot their propaganda the Republicans will cower in fear. For you see the opposite of peace isn’t war, it is fear. The Democrats and media strike fear in the hearts of Republicans.

Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

President Trump and the Republican Party are in a state of constant retreat. The Democrats are in a constant state of applying pressure. Today may go down in political history as the end of the Trump presidency.

Trump’s signature slogan was, like George H.W. Bush’s read my lips, “build the wall.” The wall will not be built because the Democrats rightly understand that they have won. They aren’t tired of winning.

The presidential election cycle that is just beginning could turn out to become a rout. The Republicans could lose the Senate and the White House.

Today, January 25, 2019 is the beginning of the retreat and the decline and fall of MAGA. The end.

RELATED ARTICLE: Report: Trump Could Have DOD Build Wall Without State of Emergency, Congressional Approval

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Lindsey Graham’s take on the Trump initiative.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Al x on Unsplash.

Cross Examining the 2020 Census [+Video]

The Trump Administration intends to appeal the decision of Judge Jesse Furman at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after the Southern District of New York ruled that the Commerce Department must strike a question from the 2020 Census.

The question: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

The use of his question has energized the usual suspects and some disparate interests, all of which take exception to it. There is precedent for asking Census respondents about citizenship status: The American Community Survey, an annual statistical canvass of 3.5 million U.S. households conducted by the Census Bureau, asks about citizenship, and the main Census itself has done so in the past.

A number of left-of-center groups like the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU), the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of TeachersBend the ArcCenter for Popular DemocracyCommon CausePeople for the American WayRock the VoteSouthern Poverty Law CenterNational Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and scores of others have filed amicus briefs challenging the question or issued statements urging the Commerce Department and Census Bureau to drop the question on the grounds that the question will cause non-citizens not to respond to the decennial census. (The Census is required to count “the total resident population of the 50 states” for determining Congressional apportionment, or the number of Representatives to which each state is entitled.) At least 19 states and 10 cities have sued the Commerce Department over the question, citing violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Census Act.  These groups claim (among other things) that the citizenship question on the U.S. Census will deter certain groups, largely Hispanics and undocumented residents who fear deportation, from answering the census, depressing the number of respondents and leading to inaccuracies which have heavy political consequences.

Obtaining a reliable headcount through the census is of utmost importance to American civic life. The constitutionally mandated census determines how federal funding for government programs is distributed, how the states draw the maps of election districts which determine state elections, and how the states vote for members of Congress to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Why the Data Matters

As reported by Hayden Ludwig in early 2018, there is good reason to capture citizenship information. On a common-sense level, it is important for policymakers to know the makeup of their districts and to understand the size of (potentially) competing interests and policy agendas.

When it comes to ensuring that voting is indeed fair, citizenship data can be crucial to determine if the Justice Department needs to intervene in areas where there is suspected voter suppression. Right now, the Justice Department relies on sampling data derived from the American Community Survey. It’s especially unreliable for districts with smaller populations and in communities with high numbers of minority residents who aren’t eligible to vote.

The lawsuits also ignore the fact that the Census Bureau has been tracking citizenship data for a very long time. The now-defunct “long-form” census asked this question until it was eliminated in 2000 in favor of the American Community Survey. The American Community Survey, which is distributed to 2.6 percent of the population, asks this question of respondents every year. Furthermore, other government agencies, such as the FBI or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are not allowed to access this information.

But what’s emerging from the “resistance” to this question is a power-grab that is inherently political.

Groups on the left are concerned about supposed underreporting because areas with a high density of foreign nationals—including illegal immigrants—tend to vote for Democrats. (Many are also so-called “sanctuary cities” which do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.) A depressed population count in these areas could cost Democrats seats in the House of Representatives. After all, after the 2020 Census, the states are required to draw new district maps to reflect any changes in the population in accordance with Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. This is the opportunity Democrats have been waiting for since 2010.

Moving Redistricting Out of the Shadows

After Republicans across the country won a wave of elections in 2010, they were in power to draw (most of) the required 2011 district maps. As is predictable, a number of GOP-controlled states drew maps favorable to Republicans. (This is hardly unusual. As a rule, both sides will draw maps favorable to themselves; indeed, both sides did it in states they controlled after 2010. Watch CRC’s video on gerrymandering here.)

The Democrats have been quietly working to break up Republican-drawn district maps since 2010, when Marc Elias, chair of the political law group at Perkins Coie and counsel to a host of Democratic lawmakers and left-leaning political and nonprofit organizations, secured an exemption from the Federal Elections Commission to raise money for a coordinated litigation effort. His efforts became the National Democratic Redistricting Trust.

The effort moved into the national spotlight after former Attorney General Eric Holder founded the National Democratic Redistricting Committee(NDRC)—a registered 527 political action committee which incorporated the former Trust. (Elias remains senior advisor and general counsel to NDRC.) Litigation funded by the PAC argued that the maps constituted racial or partisan gerrymanders that violated the Voting Rights Act. As a result, new maps were drawn in Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania to name a few. In the 2018 midterm elections, Republicans lost seats in both Virginia and Pennsylvania. (The new map in North Carolina had yet to be implemented: The GOP retained its seats, although one election is unresolved.) Elias and Holder definitely helped swing the 2018 mid-term elections.

But the Census question is too important for Holder, Obama, and Elias to sit out.

Holder issued a statement through the National Democratic Redistricting Committee in March 2018, promising to litigate the case. In April, Covington & Burling, a white-shoe law firm where Eric Holder is a partner, filed a lawsuit against the Commerce Department. The plaintiffs are voters from Arizona and Maryland—an attempt by Holder to illustrate that voters in Red and Blue states are affected by the citizenship question.

According to the Washington Post, the lawsuit is being coordinated by the National Redistricting Foundation, which is closely affiliated with NDRC.

In fact, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization shares two of its three officers with the political action committee. Kelly Ward serves as NDRC executive director and President and CEO of the National Redistricting Foundation; Elisabeth Pearson sits on the board of both organizations and formerly served as the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association. The third officer, Treasurer Mitch Stewart, is a Democratic consultant whose firm counted Organizing for America as client.

The group is only a year old, but its first Form 990 revealed the nonprofit organization already has $2.85 million to dedicate to its anti-gerrymandering efforts. The Form 990 also reveals that the Foundation is a direct controlling entity of the 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, the National Redistricting Action Fund. The National Redistricting Foundation, National Redistricting Action Fund, and the NDRC all indicate they are headquartered at 700 13th Street NW, Suite 600, in Washington, D.C.—the address of Perkins Coie’s D.C. offices, where Marc Elias works.

On its own, the National Redistricting Action Fund reports it has $1.15 million in available funds. Kelly Ward, Elisabeth Pearson, and Mitch Stewart are also the three officers on the (c)(4)’s board. The group recently announced it was absorbing Organizing for Action, former President Barack Obama’s 501(c)(4) advocacy group—a reincarnation of his presidential election campaign. Organizing for Action will cease to exist. Presumably this merger will add over $5 million to the Democrats’ redistricting project as well as make the Obama campaign’s much-coveted email list available to drum up support for its version of a supposedly less gerrymandered America.

Who Will Be Asking the Questions?

As the varied lawsuits make their way through the appellate courts, newly empowered House Democrats are keeping the issue alive. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross agreed today to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. The Committee, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) released a statement: “Committee Members expect Secretary Ross to provide complete and truthful answers to a wide range of questions, including questions regarding the ongoing preparations for the census, the addition of a citizenship question, and other topics.”

While litigators and politicians make their case to strike or include the question, time is ticking. The 2020 Census Form needs to be finalized soon, before the counting begins next year. After that, the contentious redistricting process will begin. By then the Democrats at the heart of the party’s redistricting effort will have even more money to pay for ballot initiatives, campaign expenditures, and, of course, litigation.

COLUMN BY

Christine Ravold

Christine Ravold

Christine is the Capital Research Center’s Communications Officer. She writes, edits, and serves as a press contact. She is a graduate of Rosemont College in Pennsylvania. + MORE BY CHRISTINE RAVOLD

RELATED ARTICLE: Who Runs the Census? How the bureaucracy takes power away from elected officials. – WSJ

Support Capital Research Center’s award-winning journalism

Donate today to assist in promoting the principles of individual liberty in America. 

EDITORS NOTE: This Capital Research Center column with images is republished with permission.

France builds “Trump-style” wall to keep illegal Muslim migrants from breaking into Britain from Calais

France has speedily “built a ten-foot wall at a Total station in Calais used by migrants who attempt to storm lorries and break into Britain.”

The wall is being compared by detractors to the “Trump wall,” and it is just as needed: “there are an estimated 600 mostly male migrants hailing from Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria squatting in makeshift camps around the port town waiting to break into Britain— down from an estimated 10,000 during the heyday of the infamous ‘Calais Jungle.’”

Reminder: the Calais jungle was a violent no-go war zone.

“France Builds Trump-Style Wall to Stop Illegals Getting to Britain,” by Victoria Friedman, Breitbart, January 21, 2019:

French authorities have built a ten-foot wall at a Total station in Calais used by migrants who attempt to storm lorries and break into Britain.

The barrier is being erected at a petrol station in the Marcel-Doret area where lorries stop to fill up with fuel before heading to the port and onwards to the United Kingdom. It is set to be finished by mid-February.

Local prefect Fabien Sudry told Nord Littoral that “smuggling networks meet there and take advantage of stations near the port to get migrants in trucks.”

“The situation was rather tense at this station. The police regularly had stones thrown at them,” Mr Sudry said.
A Total spokesman confirmed the barrier was built at the request of the Calais prefecture to “protect customers, staff, and migrants,” the Daily Mail reports, with locals comparing it to the wall that U.S. President Donald Trump wants to build along the southern border of the United States to stop mass illegal migration from Central and South America.

Pro-migration aid workers object to the wall, as the barrier between the two spaces is “divisive.”
One Calais-based charity worker who wished to withhold their identity complained: “The wall is ugly and of course divisive.”

“This is very political — it aims to show desperate people that they are not welcome here, and that more and more walls and police will be used to keep them out.

“If you oppose such policies, you can get into a lot of trouble.”

There are an estimated 600 mostly male migrants hailing from Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria squatting in makeshift camps around the port town waiting to break into Britain — down from an estimated 10,000 during the heyday of the infamous “Calais Jungle”.

It is believed to be the first time that a wall has been so quickly erected in a hotspot area for trafficking with the intention of stopping migrants attempting to make the journey to the United Kingdom…..

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Benny Jackson on Unsplash.