Story about Unaccompanied Alien Children in Florida Shelter is Humorous and Infuriating

/in , , , , , /by

This is a story from UPI last week that has been languishing in my posting queue.

It’s a longish story, but worth reading if you want to know more about life (the good life) in a shelter for the “children” who have come across our border illegally and unaccompanied.

Unaccompanied alien teens
Here come the Unaccompanied Alien Children!

I’m only going to bring your attention to a couple of points, one that made me laugh, the other that should infuriate you as it did me!

The point that makes me laugh is this! 

The Office of Refugee Resettlement shelter (never mind that they are not refugees!) houses up to 1,600 youths older than 13.  However, in almost every paragraph (there are 53 paragraphs!) in the story the teens are referred to as “children.”  In fact, the word “child” or “children” is used a whopping 63 times (twice in some paragraphs) while the word “teen” or “teenager” is never used, not even once!

Just that one little linguistic trick is meant to direct your thinking so that you imagine hundreds of little children missing mommy and daddy and crying themselves to sleep each night.

And it infuriates me to read that 670 of the “children” are 17 and older and as they age-out at 18, a big hunt begins to find them “sponsors” to take charge of them so that they aren’t turned over to ICE.

Here are the opening paragraphs of the UPI story,

Feb. 13 (UPI) — A month after federal officials removed the last child from a facility in Texas, 1,600 unaccompanied migrant children are being housed at a so-called temporary emergency shelter in Florida.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services invited UPI and other media on Wednesday to tour the facility in Homestead, Fla., which is located in a former Job Corps facility near the Homestead Air Reserve Base. It is used as a shelter for what HHS calls “unaccompanied alien children,” or UAC — migrants between the ages of 13 and 17 who have no lawful immigration status and no legal guardians able to provide care in the United States.

Since March 2018 more than 6,000 children have been placed at the site and about 4,450 have been discharged to what the department considers suitable sponsors — generally a parent or some other relative — in the United States, according to HHS.

At the time of UPI’s visit, 1,575 children were being sheltered at the facility — 1,143 males and 432 females.

Now check this out!  43% of the “children” are between 17 and 18 years old! (Or, they could be older, see my next post!)

The south campus houses 905 children between the ages of 13 and 16, including 634 males and 271 females, while all 17-year-olds at the facility live on the north campus, which houses 509 males and 161 females.

In case you wondered what happens when the “children” turn 18:

Three months before a “child” turns 18, the sponsor hunt begins in earnest.

Children who turn 18 while in custody at a shelter are considered undocumented immigrants and are released to authorities, Weber said.

There were 21 such cases at the Homestead facility last month and 90 in the past year, the Homestead program coordinator said.

A team of case managers at the facility focuses on finding sponsors for children within three months of their 18th birthday and the program coordinator receives daily reports regarding their status in the two weeks before those children turn 18.

Read the whole story, it is worth your time.

Remember, YOU are paying for all of this!  And, more are on the way!  You MUST scream at your elected officials—‘Enough is enough!’—and do it at every opportunity!  Today, you might tell the President (again!) by going to the White House comment page and voicing your opinion.

RELATED ARTICLE: Refugee Resettlement Contractor wants Rep. Ilhan Omar to Tone it Down

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

Dems to Trump: Quit Wall You’re Ahead

/in , , , , , /by

If liberals wanted to sue over the border wall, they’re about 13 years too late. Congress already gave its blessing back in 2006 when it passed the Secure Fence Act. The same goes for the president’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel. The House and Senate have been on board since 1995 when they authorized it. If the Left’s being honest, its problem isn’t that the president is moving forward with the wall. Its problem is that the president is Donald Trump.

Back in 2014, the Washington Examiner’s Eddie Scarry points out, the media had no problem calling it a “border crisis.” Neither did Barack Obama, who stood in the same Rose Garden as Donald Trump did on Friday, and insisted, “We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the border that only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our immigration system once and for all.” Five years, one administration, and who-knows-how-many caravans later, and suddenly, this president is doing something “immoral” by addressing the situation. That’s not because the dilemma changed. It’s because the occupant of the Oval Office did.

Take columnists like Karen Tumulty. In 2014, Scarry explains, she had no problem writing about the “current crisis on the Southwest border.” Well, it must have magically fixed itself, because last month, she accused the president of “manufacturing an emergency.” California, New York, and 14 other states want you to think that Donald Trump was acting outside of his constitutional authority when he used his executive power to finish the job Congress gave the green light to over a dozen years ago. But, as Ken Klukowski told me last night on Washington Watch, nothing could be farther from the truth.

“It’s critical for everyone to understand: the president is not invoking any of his inherent constitutional powers — none of his Article 2 powers, like commander-in-chief authority. In this case, you have a president who is only acting under a specific act of Congress, a federal statute called the National Emergencies Act of 1976. It’s been used 59 times before. This is just number 60. In fact, the 59th time was earlier this month — also by President Trump — regarding U.S. relations with Venezuela, because of course the turmoil going on over there. Maybe I missed the press release, but I didn’t hear the sky fall [when he declared that emergency]. I didn’t hear a news story from the National Archives that the Constitution burst into flames. One would almost think that this is just part of the rule of law. And that’s exactly what’s going on here.”

President Trump’s request is simple. He wants to move money that’s already been approved by Congress from one bank account to another. This president hasn’t “conjured funding from thin air (the military construction and Army Corps funding has already been appropriated),” the Federalist argues, “nor is he using funds for purposes explicitly prohibited by Congress (to the contrary, Congress explicitly authorized the construction of a border wall).”

In other words, there’s no constitutional crisis here. The only reason these leftist states are suing Trump is because he wants to protect American sovereignty and security. Juxtapose that with 2012. When conservative states took Barack Obama to court over his health care mandate, it was for the exact opposite reason. Unlike Trump, Obama wasn’t in the business of protecting freedom — he was in the business of undermining it. Obviously, after eight years of Obama, a lot of people are out of practice when it comes to operating within the limits of presidential authority. But in this instance, the contrast between the two parties has never been clearer.

None of this, unfortunately, is a surprise to President Trump. “… I’ll sign the final papers as soon as I get into the Oval Office. And we will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued. and they will sue us in the Ninth Circuit even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling — and then we’ll get another bad ruling — and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we’ll get a fair shake. And we’ll win in the Supreme Court just like the [travel] ban.”

As Ken joked, “We can’t get through our morning coffee without the Left filing a new lawsuit against President Trump — even when he’s just doing things that President Obama or previous presidents have done. Somehow it all becomes illegal when President Trump does it.” But if there’s one thing the other side should have learned by now, it’s that this president isn’t deterred — not by them, not by lawsuits, and certainly not when it comes to doing what’s right.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Addressing Labels in the NYT

Planned Parenthood: Taking Care of Business

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with images is republished with permission.

How Democrats Spawned The Border Crisis

/in , , , , , /by

Sacrificing national security on the altar of open borders.

When I was growing up my mom sagely told me, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.”

For the past several decades, where actual border security and effective immigration law enforcement are concerned, the political elites of both parties have consistently exclaimed, “No way!”

Rather than devise strategies to effectively enforce our immigration laws, secure our borders and deter massive illegal immigration, our political leaders worked mightily to devise excuses and subterfuges to scam Americans by perpetrating Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con Game.

Politicians from both parties have declared that since we cannot deport all of the illegal aliens in the United States, the best we can do is legalize them to ostensibly “get them out of the shadows.”

That lunacy does not deter illegal immigration but encourages it — in essence, firing the starter’s pistol for aspiring illegal aliens from around the world. That is why a succession of caravans is now heading to the United States.

Indeed, the betrayal of America and Americans by our politicians was the predication for my articles, “Caravan Of ‘Migrants’ – A Crisis Decades In The Making: America is on the edge of forfeiting its sovereignty and security” and “Sanctuary Country – Immigration failures by design.”

I urge you to take the time to read both of those articles in which I provide an insider’s view of how the leadership of both parties have come to see in the immigration system not so much a law enforcement system that protects America and Americans from aliens, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, whose presence would pose a threat to national security, public safety, public health and the jobs of Americans, but rather a delivery system for an unlimited supply of cheap and exploitable foreign workers, an unlimited supply of foreign tourists and, for the lawyers of both parties, an unlimited supply of clients.

This is why the critical interior enforcement mission has always been severely understaffed. TSA, for example, has more than 45,000 employees, the NYPD has more than 36,000 officers just to protect the City of New York, but ICE only has about 6,000 agents for the entire United States of America and half of them are not even doing immigration law enforcement but are engaged in investigating narcotics, financial crimes, kiddie porn and intellectual property theft.

The very creation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a key component of the Department of Homeland Security (that I have come to refer to as the Department of Homeland Surrender) by President George W. Bush in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11, was designed to undermine, not enhance, border security and/or immigration law enforcement. 

Customs has nothing to do with immigration law enforcement and merging immigration with other non-related agencies and then bifurcating the immigration mission into ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) created what John Hostettler, the former Republican Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, referred to as “immigration incoherence.”

With all of the threats that America and Americans face from transnational gangs, drug cartels and international terrorist organizations, President Trump has tried to get the funding for a border wall. The Republicans didn’t do anything to help him when they controlled the House of Representatives and the Democrats not only won’t help him but have accused him of creating a false crisis on the border when he declared a “national emergency.”

In response to Trump’s declaration of the national emergency to move money from related programs to fund the border wall, the Democrats are employing the tactic that the ACLU refers to as “lawfare,” filing a blizzard of lawsuits.

Evidence of the dire threats we face have been provided in abundance in a series of Congressional hearings predicated on government reports and threat assessments authored by the intelligence community and DEA.

Democrats created “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” and now the Democrats are calling for the dismantling of ICE altogether and the elimination of America’s borders even though the preface of the official government report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel, begins with this 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.

While a wall on the border by itself would not ameliorate the threats, it would represent a vital element of what needs to be a coordinated program to address all of the vulnerabilities in the immigration system.

I have come to compare a secure barrier along the southern border with a wing on an airplane: without the wing the airplane won’t fly; however, a wing by itself goes nowhere.

We need to prevent the entry of illegal aliens and contraband by whatever means they are able to enter the United States. I have frequently referred to the multiple means by which aliens enter the United States as the “Immigration Colander.”  This is why we must understand that the United States has 50 “border states.”

Here are the cold, hard facts that illustrate the severe threats we face that any rational adult would certainly consider a crisis.

To begin with, I would argue that the flood of narcotics into the United States should be seen as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD).

Fentanyl is as lethal as cyanide.

Furthermore, Americans pay for the poisons to the tune of tens of billions of dollars that flow into the coffers of drug trafficking organizations and terrorist organizations.

My article, “New York City: Hub For The Deadly Drug Trade: ‘Sanctuary’ policies attract foreign drug traffickers, fugitives and terrorists” was, in large measure, predicated on a November 13, 2017 Washington Post news report“Mexican traffickers making New York a hub for lucrative — and deadly — fentanyl.”

Here is how that Washington Post report began:

NEW YORK — The middle-aged couple in the station wagon went shopping at a New Jersey Walmart on a warm night in August. They stopped for dinner at an IHOP on the way home. And when they arrived at their apartment building in a quiet residential section of Queens, the narcotics agents following them got a warrant to go inside.

They found several suitcases loaded with brick-shaped bundles of what appeared to be heroin. But lab tests determined that most of it — 141 pounds — was pure fentanyl, a synthetic and supremely dangerous opioid 50 times more powerful than heroin.

It was the largest fentanyl seizure in U.S. history. There was enough inside the apartment to kill 32 million people, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

Let’s imagine that a terror plot has been uncovered for international terrorists to enter the United States to blow up a football stadium filled with 60,000 fans, as in the 1977 cinematic thriller Black Sunday.

Such a huge attack would be devastating and send fear not just across America but across the world.

However, My article “DEA Reports Record Deaths From Drug Overdoses How a broken southern border allows narcotics to flood America” was predicated on the DEA’s 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment that included the following:

  • In 1999 drug poisoning in the U.S. accounted for 16,849 deaths, while deaths from suicide, homicide, firearms and motor vehicles accounted for more deaths than did drug poisoning.
  • In 2009 deaths attributed to drug poisoning moved into first place with 37,004 such fatalities.
  • Since 2009 drug poisoning has accounted for more deaths than did the other causes of death, with a sharp upward trend in the number of such fatalities.  In 2013, 43,982 deaths were attributed to drug poisoning, in 2014 that number increased to 47,055, in 2015 the number jumped to 52,404 and in 2016 that number had skyrocketed to 63,632 deaths.

Because those 63,632 tragic deaths attributed to opiate overdoses did not occur en masse and there was no dramatic explosion, they got very little attention.

Those deadly drugs are pouring into the United States primarily across our southern border and through ports of entry, between ports of entry, as well as through international airports.

A small quantity of fentanyl can kill millions of people, yet the Democrats quibble about whether or not we should construct barriers, not to prevent anyone from entering the United States, but to make certain that all who do enter the country are inspected the same way that passengers who seek to board airliners must undergo a search by TSA.

While the Democrats argue that the wall would be too expensive, not unlike insulation on a house, the wall would pay for itself. That was the premise for my article, “America Needs A Border Wall Like Houses Need Insulation.”

As for the threats posed by international terrorists, my article, “Border Security Is National Security” referenced an April 12, 2017 Washington Times report, Sharafat Ali Khan smuggled terrorist-linked immigrants. My article included the following excerpt:

Khan is a citizen of Pakistan who had established himself as a permanent resident in Brazil and then smuggled numerous illegal aliens from the Middle East into the United States through Mexico.  ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case, Foreign national extradited and pleads guilty to human smuggling conspiracy.

That Khan first became a resident of Brazil prior to beginning his smuggling operation is of particular concern. 

Terror training camps run by Hamas and Hezbollah are to be found in the Tri-Border region of Brazil (where Brazil abuts with Argentina and Paraguay).  While there was no specific mention of Khan making use of those camps, given the nature of his crimes, this is a very real and troubling possibility.

It is also entirely possible that members of ISIS and al-Qaeda are present in those terror training camps.

Concerns about the Tri-Border Region were ably reported on in a paper, Islamist Terrorist Threat in the Tri-Border Region that was published by Jeffrey Fields, Research Associate, Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

The U.S./Mexican border is all that stands between America and Middle Eastern terrorists operating throughout  Latin America. As I noted in my recent article, “The Impending Alien Invasion,” Latin America has become a hotbed for terrorist activities, a fact that was highlighted at a hearing conducted on April 17, 2018 by the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence on the topic, “State Sponsors of Terrorism: An Examination of Iran’s Global Terrorism Network.”

My article included an excerpt of the prepared testimony of one of the witnesses, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:

In recent years, Hezbollah’s Latin American networks have also increasingly cooperated with violent drug cartels and criminal syndicates, often with the assistance of local corrupt political elites. Cooperation includes laundering of drug money; arranging multi-ton shipments of cocaine to the United States and Europe; and directly distributing and selling illicit substances to distant markets. Proceeds from these activities finance Hezbollah’s arms procurement; its terror activities overseas; its hold on Lebanon’s political system; and its efforts, both in Lebanon and overseas, to keep Shi’a communities loyal to its cause and complicit in its endeavors.

This toxic crime-terror nexus is fueling both the rising threat of global jihadism and the collapse of law and order across Latin America that is helping drive drugs and people northward into the United States. It is sustaining Hezbollah’s growing financial needs. It is helping Iran and Hezbollah consolidate a local constituency in multiple countries across Latin America. It is thus facilitating their efforts to build safe havens for terrorists and a continent-wide terror infrastructure that they could use to strike U.S. targets.

For the Democrats the only crisis that concerns them is not if hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their lives, but if they lose their next elections.

RELATED ARTICLE: Congressional Incompetence Forced Trump’s Hand on National Emergency Declaration

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. The featured image is by geralt on Pixabay.

Podcast: Obama’s Border Patrol Chief Explains Why Walls Work

/in , , , , /by

On today’s podcast, we’re featuring an exclusive interview with Mark Morgan, who was chief of the U.S. Border Patrol under President Barack Obama. Now Morgan is speaking out in favor of President Donald Trump’s border wall. Find out why on today’s show.

Also on today’s show:

  • We’re celebrating Presidents Day, or what rightfully should be called George Washington’s Birthday. Listen to a timeless speech from President Ronald Reagan from Feb. 22, 1982.
  • Your letters to the editor. Next week your letter could be featured on our show; write us at letters@dailysignal.com or call 202-608-6205

The Daily Signal podcast is available on the Ricochet Audio Network. You also can listen on iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts.

If you like what you hear, please leave a review or give us feedback. Enjoy the show!

PODCAST BY

Portrait of Rob Bluey

Rob Bluey

Rob Bluey is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.

Portrait of Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

16 states sue Trump over emergency wall declaration

Supreme Court Expedites Citizenship Question in Census Case

We Hear You: Declaring a National Emergency at the Border

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 by Nerthus on Pixabay.

Fact Checking The “Fact Checkers” On Illegal Aliens — “Outing” Orwellian fake news.

/in , , , , , /by

On Monday, February 11th I was a guest on a radio show, “The Americhicks” on radio station KLZ to discuss a Feb 4, 2019 CBS News article, The facts on immigration: What you need to know in 2019– CBSN fact-check on immigration.

The CBS article ostensibly responded to nine questions about immigration raised by President Trump.  I was asked to weigh in about the honesty and accuracy of the “Facts” published by CBS to discredit what the President had said.

I reviewed the article during the weekend that preceded that show and found that falsehoods permeated this supposed “fact-check on immigration.”

Unfortunately this sort of deceptive “reporting” is all too common. 

By understanding how to unravel the tapestry of lies contained in this article will provide a methodology that can be brought to bear to critically analyze all supposed “news” articles.

To begin with, the late criminal defense attorney Johnnie Cochran remarked at the O.J. trial, “If you can’t trust the messenger, you cannot trust the message.”

Voltaire wisely said, “You should judge a man’s intelligence by the questions he asked.”  The trick is to devise the incisive questions that provide you with the insight you need to determine whether the material you are reviewing is honest or propaganda.

The CBS News article quoted a number of organizations that provided the supposed “Facts” that were used to counter what President Trump said.  The first issue is to find out who these sources (messengers) are.  It is particularly helpful to find the organization’s website online and review its mission statement.  It may be posted under “About” or “About Us” at the top of the website.

The first source quoted in the CBS article was the Center For Migration Studies.  Here is how its mission statement (under “About” on its website) begins:

The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) is a think tank and an educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees and newcomers.

Simply stated, this organization is not an objective think tank but a biased advocacy group that seeks to increase the numbers of aliens admitted into the United States and is determined to quash any objections about the influx of aliens irrespective of how they enter the United States.

The CBS article used information provided by CMS to answer the question:  How do most unauthorized immigrants enter the United States?

The answer provided in the CBS article was described as a “Fact”

Fact: Two-thirds of the recent unauthorized immigrant population entered the U.S. on valid visas, then stayed in the country after that visa expired.

This supposed “Fact” was provided to oppose the construction of the border wall, claiming that since so many aliens don’t run our borders, we don’t need to build the wall.

In reality, the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States is unknown.  Therefore it is impossible to determine what percentage of illegal aliens entered the U.S. by evading the inspections process at ports of entry vs the number of aliens who violate their visas.

Recently Harvard and MIT conducted studies that showed that although it has been estimated by many organizations that there are about 11 million illegal aliens, the number, according to the university studies may be double that number or even higher.

For more information about this issue, check out my recent article:  Twice As Many Illegal Aliens In US According To MIT.

Additionally, on February 8, 2019 ABC News reported:  Border arrests up 85 percent over same period last year: US Customs and Border Protection.

In fact, on February 11th I participated in a discussion on Fox & Friends First about the latest statistics provided by CBP.

Fox News posted the video under the title, A new report reveals the problem at the border is only getting worse:  Retired INS agent Michael Cutler weighs in on the crisis at the southern border.

No matter what the actual statistics are, given the huge number of illegal aliens present in the United States and the now routine onslaught of a human tsunami in the form of an endless succession of “caravans” of illegal aliens flowing northward from Central America to the United States, the percentage of illegal aliens who enter the U.S. without inspection is certainly great enough to be considered a true crisis that poses a threat to national security and public safety that must be effectively dealt with.

This brings us to the second question in the CBS News article, the actual number of illegal aliens who are present in the United States. 

The sources quoted by CBS in response to this question were the Pew Research Center and the Migration Policy Institute.  Both organizations have historically attempted to downplay the magnitude of the immigration crisis.

In point of fact, Doris Meissner, the Commissioner of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) under the Clinton administration, joined the Migration Policy Institute about a year after it was formed as a senior fellow.  Meissner, as INS commissioner, was responsible for implementing a massive naturalization program known as CUSA (Citizenship USA) that sought to naturalize as many new citizens as possible and resorted to shortcuts including approving applications for citizenship before fingerprint records were consolidated with the immigration files.  Under CUSA approximately 1.1 million aliens were naturalized and because of the extreme shortcuts and threats of extreme discipline against INS District Directors if quotas were not met, concerned employees of the INS contacted the Office of the Inspector General.

The eye-opening OIG report about the allegations of malfeasance of this program was published and is well worth reading.

INS Commissioner Meissner had an adversarial relationship with the special agents of the INS and was hostile towards immigration law enforcement justice.

On May 4, 1999 the House Immigration Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the Designations Of Temporary Protected Status And Fraud In Prior Amnesty Programs. 

John F. Shaw, the former Assistant Commissioner for Investigations, Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified at that hearing.  His testimony about his frustrations with Doris Meissner provides insight into her hostility to immigration law enforcement.

Here is an excerpt from his testimony:

In its determined efforts to establish control of the border by tightening security on the perimeter, Congress has seemingly ignored the critical, complementary roles and responsibilities of Interior Enforcement . . . and these fall mainly on the shoulders of Investigations.

I believe that the concept of Interior Enforcement, supported by a well articulated strategy document, ought to be as familiar in the nomenclature of immigration enforcement as the concept, or term, Border Control. Although, I must admit that even in-house at INS, the Commissioner has said that Interior Enforcement is a term of usage invented by Investigations and devoid of meaning.

The CBS article also made much of how the majority of drugs are seized at ports of entry and therefore more needs to be done to prevent smuggling through ports of entry and not be concerned about the amount of drugs that are smuggled across the border between ports of entry.

The fact is that we don’t know what we don’t know.  Obviously, DEA has no way of knowing the total amount of narcotics that is successfully smuggled between ports of entry.  There is no shortage of heroin in the United States and therefore with all of the seizures made by CBP at ports of entry, huge quantities are still getting into the U.S.  Clearly open borders must be considered as a serious threat to the integrity of our efforts to interdict smuggled drugs as well as smuggled aliens.

The article additionally asks the absurd question, “Is asylum a form of illegal immigration?”

The article then provides the assertion:

Fact: No. “If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States.”  Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Of course, while filing for any immigration benefit does not constitute “illegal immigration”, lying on such applications and therefore committing fraud is a felony.

The issue of asylum fraud was, in fact, the focus of a November 21, 2013 Washington Times news report, “Mexican drug cartels exploit asylum system by claiming ‘credible fear.’”

That article was predicated on two House Judiciary Committee hearings: Asylum Abuse: Is it Overwhelming our Borders? and Asylum Fraud: Abusing America’s Compassion?

The CBS article ignored that the majority of applications filed by aliens from Central America are denied and that immigration fraud was a key concern of the 9/11 Commission.  That was the predication for my article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill-9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as a key embedding tactic of terrorists.

The CBS article claimed that the majority of aliens who applied for asylum attended their hearings.  They did not, however, divulge how many aliens whose applications were denied subsequently absconded and failed to depart from the United States.

The CBS article also asked (and answered):

Do illegal immigrants commit more violent crimes than legal residents?

Fact: Studies say that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than American-born citizens.

Source: The Cato Institute and The University of Wisconsin.

My article, Illegal Immigration And Crime: The stunning numbers the Left cannot refute includes this excerpt:

President Trump’s Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on data collection efforts. On Dec. 18, 2017, DOJ and DHS released the FY 2017 4th Quarter Alien Incarceration Report, complying with this order.  The report found that more than one-in-five of all persons in Bureau of Prisons custody were foreign born, and that 94 percent of confirmed aliens in custody were unlawfully present.

Here is an excerpt from the press release that provides some quick statistics and a paragraph that addresses the lack of information about aliens in city and state facilities.

A total of 58,766 known or suspected aliens were in DOJ custody at the end of FY 2017, including 39,455 persons in BOP custody and 19,311 in USMS custody. Of this total, 37,557 people had been confirmed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be aliens (i.e., non-citizens and non-nationals), while 21,209 foreign-born people were still under investigation by ICE to determine alienage and/or removability.

Among the 37,557 confirmed aliens, 35,334 people (94 percent) were unlawfully present. These numbers include a 92 percent unlawful rate among 24,476 confirmed aliens in BOP custody and a 97 percent unlawful rate among 13,081 confirmed aliens in USMS custody

This report does not include data on the foreign-born or alien populations in state prisons and local jails because state and local facilities do not routinely provide DHS or DOJ with comprehensive information about their inmates and detainees—which account for approximately 90 percent of the total U.S. incarcerated population.

The rest of the material in the CBS News article can be similarly discredited, proving that, as John Adams famously observed, “Facts are stubborn things.”

RELATED VIDEO: FAIR Discusses the Crisis on the Southern Border.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. The featured image is by pixel2013 on Pixabay.

Democrats Are Spinning A Real National Emergency

/in , , , , , /by

Is it unlawful? Is it unprecedented? No, and No.

Caravan of illegal aliens.

Because the Congress will not fund the southern wall, President Trump has no alternative but to declare a national emergency to obtain funding and continue construction efforts. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claims such action is unprecedented. Senate Minority Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tweeted it would be “a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency.” Both are wrong.

First of all, the “National Emergencies Act” (94-412) is legitimate legislation passed in 1976 and empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis.

The first President to issue an emergency proclamation was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, back in 1917, to improve maritime tonnage to move resources around the United States and the world. This is back when the world was embroiled in the first World War and our allies required supplies.

In recent times, National Emergencies have been called by the president numerous times. To date, 58 emergencies have been declared, and 31 are still in effect. Here is how many recent presidents have issued:

03-President Trump
11-President Obama
13-President Bush
09-President Clinton

Many of these are concerned with blocking the property of people who violate American policy, but it has also been used for imposing sanctions and other situations. Speaker Pelosi made a veiled threat when she said, “A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well.” The reality is, Democrats have already declared emergencies, as former President Barack Obama bragged, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

In Speaker Pelosi’s view, she foresees future presidents declaring emergencies over such things as gun rights. This would inevitably trigger a Constitutional crisis as it would be violating the Second Amendment. This is not the same as in President Trump’s case where he wishes to secure our border. Nonetheless, his emergency will be challenged in court, but he will likely win as he has precedence on his side.

So why all of the fuss? The Democrats are trying to convince the public the declaration of emergency by President Trump is unlawful and unprecedented in order to build public opinion against the president. The fact is, nothing could be further from the truth. It is simply not so.

In order to invoke the emergency, President Trump will have to demonstrate a crisis truly exists. The Democrats claim the problem is being “manufactured” by the president, but there is plenty of data to show a bona fide problem exists. Both parties are cognizant of this, so why are the Democrats adamantly opposed to it? Simple: control. There are now over 22 million illegal immigrants in the United States with more trying to come in every day, some are honest and hard working, others are criminals. Either way, the Democrats are endeavoring to grant citizenship to these people thereby turning them into voters who would presumably support their party, thereby turning the Congress and White House to liberal rule.

Let’s be clear, the Republicans and the president have no problem with legal migration, as we all should be, but there are other forces at play here trying to undermine our country.

Do we have a National Emergency? Yes, I believe we do, both at the border and in the halls of Congress.

Keep the Faith!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Donald J. Trump’s Accomplishment’s List | MAGA PILL

If Trump declares a national emergency over the border, he’ll be on solid legal ground

Trump Frees Up $8 Billion To Build The Wall

House Passes Border Security Bill With Most Democrats Voting In Favor And Most Republicans Against It

RELATED VIDEO: FAIR Discusses the Crisis on the Southern Border.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce Is Right column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by TheDigitalArtist on Pixabay. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Another Illegal Alien Arrested in Gruesome Murder

/in , , , , , /by

You have probably seen this news about another illegal alien killer, however I’m mentioning it because the sensational aspects of the case have made it news around the world.

The victim was beautiful and her body was stuffed in a suitcase and dumped in the woods making the news apparently more interesting to the mainstream media than the Reno, Nevada case I reported recently where four older Americans were killed in their homes by another illegal alien creep—a story that didn’t get nearly the coverage this one is getting.

The man alleged to have murdered the young and beautiful Valerie Reyes is in the country illegally as a visa overstay.

From the Washington Times,

Suspect in suitcase death in U.S. illegally, authorities say

A man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and dumping her body in a suitcase in Connecticut is a citizen of Portugal who has been in the U.S. illegally for more than a year, federal authorities said Wednesday as the victim’s loved ones gathered for her funeral.

Javier da Silva Rojas
Rojas and his victim.

Javier Da Silva Rojas, who had been living in New York City, was taken into custody Monday and charged with kidnapping resulting in death in the killing of 24-year-old Valerie Reyes, of New Rochelle, New York. The charge carries the possibility of the death penalty.

Da Silva, also 24, entered the U.S. on May 8, 2017, through the Visa Waiver Program and was required to leave by Aug. 5, 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement.

If you are interested in reading more about the alleged killer, simply search his name and you will see stories about the murder everywhere.

We spend a lot of time talking about “the Wall,” but the feds need to do more to round-up visa overstays and get them the heck out of the country!  Why not let the President know how you feel about the need for greater enforcement!

RELATED ARTICLE: Former U.S. Counterintelligence Agent Charged With Espionage on Behalf of Iran

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by Gentle07 on Pixabay.

VIDEO: Fence and Sensibility

/in , , , , , /by

With all of the uproar over late-term abortion, it’s easy to forget that Congress is juggling other crises — including the one on our southern border. With the clock ticking down to another government shutdown, both parties have been hunkered down, trying to cobble together an immigration bill before time runs out on Friday. Yesterday, negotiators announced that they’d finally struck a deal. But agreeing to a compromise is one thing — getting the president to support it is another.

“I can’t say I’m happy,” President Trump said this afternoon. “I can’t say I’m thrilled.” It’s no wonder. The compromise includes less than a quarter of the $5.7 billion he requested for the wall. At just $1.3 billion, the administration would have enough money for 55 miles of fencing — not the 200 it wanted. In a small concession by Democrats, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wouldn’t have to cap the number of illegal detainees it holds. But by and large, the deal doesn’t include any meaningful immigration reform — not even to the DACA program.

“I would hope that there won’t be a shutdown,” Trump said before making it clear, “I am extremely unhappy with what the Democrats have given us.” At a rally in Texas last night, the president hinted that executive actions were still on the table to finish the other 150 miles of fencing. “Just so you know,” he told the crowd in El Paso, “we’re building the wall anyway.”

That would come as relief to the dozens of sheriffs and other law enforcement who showed up on the Hill yesterday to demand better immigration enforcement. “We are at wits end on this,” said Sheriff Thomas Hodgson. “This really is a catastrophe.” Over the weekend, two national sheriffs groups delivered letters to the House and Senate warning them that if they put a limit on detainees, most of these offenders would go out “and commit more crimes.” As for cutting ICE funding — an agenda near and dear to the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — the sheriffs warned, don’t even think about it. “They put our people at risk just to take care of their political agenda,” Hodgson argued.

Elsewhere, the deal is hardly a House Freedom Caucus dream either. Democrats aren’t being “serious” about border security Chair Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) fired back. Even after hearing about the needs from people on the ground, he points out, liberals still think they know better. “Border Patrol came in to brief the conference. They gave their top-three priorities. And the conferees have said ‘zero money for those top three priorities.’ How can you be serious about securing our border if the very people that are experts on securing it say, ‘These are our top three priorities, we need money,’ and yet they’re saying, ‘zero dollars for that?'”

When it comes to a dollar figure for the wall, Meadows said there’s plenty of room for improvement. “Honestly, when you look at 0 to 5.7, somewhere in the middle would be a $2 billion to $3 billion range,” he said. “But it’s not as much just the dollar amount. It’s the flexibility in how to spend it.”

For now, President Trump insists he’s “considering everything.” One thing he won’t have to worry about is the country’s support. CBS polling showed Americans solidly in the administration’s camp on this issue. Seventy-two percent who watched the State of the Union agreed with the president’s ideas on immigration. And fortunately, those ideas didn’t include political surrender.

For more on the debate, check out FRC’s Ken Blackwell on Fox Business last night.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is the Party over for Dem Extremists?

2018 Headlines, 2019 High Stakes

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with video and images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: President Trump’s Rally in El Paso Texas

/in , , , , , , , /by

The following is the full rally by President Donald J. Trump in El Paso, Texas as recorded by the Fox News Channel on YouTube. NOTE: President Trump comes on stage at 45:23 into the video.

According to Fox News:

President Trump begins his 2020 campaign with his first rally of the year in El Paso, Texas. Trump is expected to reiterate his demand for a border wall as Democrat Beto O’Rourke leads a protest against it at the same time.

ABOUT FOX NEWS CHANNEL

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 16 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured video is by Fox News Channel on YouTube. The featured image by TheDigitalArtist on Pixabay.

VIDEO: The Sun City Cell – Investigative Documentary by Judicial Watch

/in , , , , , , /by

Judicial Watch presents “The Sun City Cell” – a stunning investigative documentary detailing the Narco-Terrorist Cell operating out of El Paso, Texas!

Featuring Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell, “The Sun City Cell” exposes a chilling narco-terror plot that government officials deny.

In this 40-minute expose, you follow the trail of corruption. You see the actual court documentation. You listen up close and personal to the confidential informants. And with Chris Farrell as your guide, you follow the four-year investigation and meet the sources inside the law enforcement and government who risk their lives to get the truth to the American people.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch documentary with images and video is republished with permission.

New York: Are “Vulnerable” Immigrants more Important to Catholic Charities than Vulnerable Babies?

/in , , , , , , , /by

I guess Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York was too busy cozying up to Governor Andrew Cuomo for money for its Pro Bono legal services in defense of illegal aliens to bother pushing too hard to save late term aborted babies!

From the Albany Times-Union,

New website connects pro-bono lawyers with immigrants in need of help

After relating stories about several illegal aliens (oops! “undocumented”)….

immigrant New York
New York’s “vulnerables!”

These undocumented immigrants are all in need of pro-bono legal help and their cases are being advertised on a new web portal run by the state’s Liberty Defense Project and Catholic Charities to connect them with volunteer immigration attorneys.

The new website funded by the state brings attention to Catholic Charities, which has placed 105 pro bono cases with more than 230 volunteer attorneys throughout New York. Every volunteer receives expert legal training to file applications for asylum-seekers, crime victims, juveniles or individuals trying to reunite with family members.

[….]

pregnancy-week-38-eye-color_4x3
In New York, no “liberty defense” for this new American!

The new website is funded by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Liberty Defense Project, launched in 2017, which provides free legal help to immigrants across the state through Office for New Americans locations.

The program has provided more than 25,000 services to immigrants, according to a press release. A quarter of the immigrants in detention who received representation under the program have been released and reunited with their families.

More here.

Again, that new website that seeks to link free lawyers to illegal aliens (aka New Americans) in need of help to stay in the country is being funded by New York state taxpayers!  See Liberty Defense Project!

What can you do?  If you live in New York and especially if you are Catholic, you must let Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York know what you think!

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Truth About Border Walls’ Effectiveness

The ‘New Normal’: An Era of Bigger Migrant Caravans Has Begun

Minnesota again! Dangerous Mix: Drugs, Guns and New Americans

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

Fact Sheet: National Emergencies, Military Construction Authority and the Border Barrier

/in , , , , , , , /by

It is not clear whether President Trump plans to declare a national emergency in order to build a physical barrier along our border with Mexico, in order to protect Americans from illegal aliens, drug traffickers, gun runners, human smugglers and other assorted criminal border jumpers.

The mainstream media has repeatedly asserted that the president does not have the authority to declare a border emergency and take the action necessary to defend the American public.

However, the media pundits would appear to be mistaken. Below, FAIR sets out the facts on the National Emergencies Act and related statutory provisions that would enable the president to accomplish what congress refuses to – place the interests of law-abiding Americans above those of law-breaking foreign nationals.

  • 1976 National Emergencies Act (NEA) 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651: This legislation specifies the manner in which the president may declare a national emergency. It also gives congress the authority to terminate a national emergency by joint resolution of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]
    • 58 national emergencies have been declared since the act was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.[2]
    • 31 of those national emergencies remain in effect.[3]
    • An emergency declaration pursuant to the NEA does not provide any specific emergency authority on its own. Rather, it allows the president to exercise emergency authorities set forth in other statutes.[4]
      • There are currently 123 distinct statutes granting the president emergency authority to respond to a wide variety of situations.[5]
        • None of those statutes explicitly reference immigration. However, many of them would allow the present to implement an emergency response to migration crises involving threats to national security, public safety or public health.
      • As part of the emergency declaration process the president must specify which emergency authority he is invoking.
    • The statutes the president is most likely to invoke, upon declaring an immigration-related national emergency, are:
      • 10 U.S. Code § 2808 – Construction Authority in the Event of A Declaration of War or National Emergency: This statute provides that, upon the President’s declaration of a national emergency, “that requires use of the armed forces,” the Secretary of Defense may “without regard to any other provision of law . . .undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”[6]
      • 33 U.S.C. § 2293 – Reprogramming During National Emergencies: This legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Army to terminate or defer Army civil works projects that are “not essential to the national defense” upon the declaration of a national emergency. The Secretary of the Army can then use the funds otherwise allocated to those projects for “authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”[7]
  • According to the Congressional Research Service there are also two statutes which may allow the president to begin construction on a border wall without declaring a national emergency or obtaining congressional authorization:
    • 10 U.S.C. § 2803 – Emergency Construction: This legislation provides that the Secretary of Defense “may carry out a military construction project not otherwise authorized by law” after determining the following: (1) “the project is vital to the national security or to the protection of health, safety, or the quality of the environment,” and (2) “the requirement for the project is so urgent that” deferring the project “would be inconsistent with national security or the protection of health, safety, or environmental quality.”[8]
    • 10 U.S.C. § 284 – Support for Counterdrug Activities and Activities to Counter Transnational Organized Crime: This legislation provides that the Secretary of Defense “may provide support for the counter drug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” of any law enforcement agency, including through the “[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.”[9]Should the president choose to declare an immigration-related national emergency and invoke his powers under one of the aforementioned statutes, he is sure to be challenged in court – most likely in the radical Ninth Federal Circuit – by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and its network of open-borders, pro-illegal-alien agitators.However, outside the Ninth Circuit, he is likely to prevail. Many prior presidents have declared national emergencies and invoked extraordinary powers in response to “crises” that were significantly less threatening than the near failure of our southern border.For now, those of us who are concerned about the integrity of America’s borders can only wait, watch and hope that our elected leaders will do the right thing and put the interests of everyday Americans above those of un-vetted border-jumpers who may present a significant threat to our country.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Truth About Border Walls’ Effectiveness

Angel Dad: Border Wall Funding Would Happen If Pelosi or Schumer’s Child Were Killed

New Source of Funds for the Wall?

Footnotes and endnotes

[1]1976 National Emergencies Act (NEA) 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-

[2]Kendall Heath, “Here’s a List of the 31 National Emergencies that Have Been in Effect for Years,” ABC News, January 10, 2019, 

[3]Ibid.

[4]Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, Emergency Authority and Immunity Toolkit, accessed February 6, 2019, 

[5]Brennan Center for Justice, A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use, December 5, 2018, 

[6]Jennifer K. Elsea, Edward C. Liu, Jay B. Sykes, “Can the Department of Defense Build the Border Wall,” Congressional Research Service, January 10, 2019, p.3, 

[7]Ibid at p. 5.

[8]Ibid at p. 5.

[9]Ibid at p. 5.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image by geralt on Pixabay.

AT&T’s Support for UnidosUS Undermines Border Security

/in , , , , /by

Earlier this week, 2ndVote’s founder and chairman sent a letter to AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart calling for these companies to stop funding UnidosUS, a liberal organization formerly known as La Raza. Thousands of concerned consumers have signed our petition to tell these companies to stop using their money to support leftist immigration policies, and oppose needed border security measures.

AT&T scores a 1 on the immigration issue because of their direct contributions to organizations such as LULAC, National Urban League, and of course, UnidosUS. All of these organizations advocate for sanctuary cities which gives illegal immigrants a safe haven for violating immigration laws, which is why we are telling AT&T to stop funding groups that support unsafe immigration policies.

Not only does AT&T score a 1 on immigration, but they also receive a 1 on all seven issues 2ndVote scores companies on. AT&T funds numerous organizations that support abortion, sponsor groups that are against national concealed carry laws, and partner with organizations that oppose religious liberty. If you want to see exactly why AT&T scores a 1 on every issue, here is a link to their company score page. And if you would like to join the thousands who oppose AT&T funding UnidosUS and other organizations, check out this article and sign the petition!

Here at 2ndVote, we don’t like to always focus on the bad actors, but also give our readers some better alternatives. A great alternative to AT&T is Patriot Mobile, who has long been an ally to 2ndVote. Patriot Mobile scores a 5 on all 7 issues, and offers a conservative choice for consumers looking to step away from AT&T. Rather than funding liberal organizations, Patriot Mobile takes a portion of their profits and donates them to Conservative organizations that stand for traditional family values, 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, and the right to life. So if you do decide to switch to Patriot Mobile, tell them that 2ndVote sent you.

Click here to see all the great products and services offered by Patriot Mobile

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

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Shutterstock.

A State Of The Union Stunt Makes The Case For E-Verify

/in , , , , /by

At least two illegal workers formerly employed by Trump businesses will be in the House gallery for the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night. That’s two more good reasons for Mr. Trump and Congress to insist on a mandatory E-Verify employment screening law.

Courtesy of Democrats eager to make hay over illegal aliens on the payroll at Trump’s National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., Victorina Morales and Sandra Diaz got reserved seats for the president’s speech.

The Washington Times reported last month that just five of the 565 companies in the Trump Organization were signed up for the government’s E-Verify online vetting system.

Attempting to improve the optics, the Trump companies announced they will start using E-Verify to weed out workers who are in the country illegally.

“We are actively engaged in uniforming this process across our properties and will institute E-Verify at any property not currently utilizing this system,” said Eric Trump, executive vice president of the Trump Organization.

Trump’s son blamed illegal aliens for submitting bogus paperwork that enabled them to be hired in the first place.

His concern is legitimate. Counterfeit and stolen documents are widely used by illegal aliens to secure employment under false pretenses. This makes the case for E-Verify even stronger, and Trump & Co. should have put this tool to use long before now.

“Much embarrassment for businesses and hardship for workers could be avoided if E-Verify were mandatory and only legal workers employed by all employers,” notes Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA.

Research points to E-Verify’s effectiveness, with one study finding steep declines in illegal alien populations where the program was mandated.

Indeed, E-Verify is key for any serious negotiations on immigration and border security. So it’s time for politicians on both side of the aisle to stop grandstanding and put E-Verify to work. Shut off the illegal jobs magnet, and illegal immigration will wane while American workers gain.

COLUMN BY

avatar

BOB DANE

Bob Dane, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)’s Executive Director, has been with FAIR since 2006. His deep belief is that immigration is the most transformational determinant of where we are heading as a nation and that our policies must be reformed in the public interest. Over many years on thousands of radio, TV and print interviews, Bob has made the case that unless immigration is regulated and sensibly reduced, it will be difficult for America to reduce unemployment, increase wages, improve health care and education and heighten national security. Prior to joining FAIR, Bob spent twenty years in network radio, marketing and communications after an earlier career in policy and budgeting within the Reagan Administration. Bob has a degree from George Mason University in Public Administration and Management.

RELATED VIDEO: Ocasio-Cortez Claims The U.S. Is A “Native Land” For Latinos.

RELATED ARTICLES:

E-Verify Federation for American Immigration Reform House Democrats Illegal WorkersR

Radical Left-Wing Democrats Demand Congress Cut Funding For Homeland Security

An Overdue Prosecution Of Birth Tourism Rings

EDITORS NOTE: This column by FAIR with images is republished with permission.

Democrats SHOULD Remain Seated; The Rest Of Us Will Choose Greatness

/in , , , , /by

I must admit I’ve become disenchanted with the State of The Union Address. I guess it began with Obama’s presidency. I found him so repulsive and dishonest that I couldn’t stand to listen.

When President Trump took office, naturally, my enthusiasm over the State of the Union Address blossomed once again. But even still, I can’t get over the fact that the Address has become a recitation of a long list of projects a particular President wishes to accomplish interlaced with pre-contrived talking points and moments of self-adulation. The State of the Union report is constitutionally prescribed, but not the Address.

However, there is one major, unanticipated plus to the State of the Union Address: observing the opposing party’s reactions to the President. Tuesday night’s was a glaring example of just how revealing this can be as millions of Americans were struck with what the Democrats did not stand for. And given this lengthy and ugly list, perhaps it is best if Democrats remain seated and stay out of the way while the rest of us choose greatness.

Here is the appalling list Democrats did not stand for:

1.  Wages are rising.  Specifically, they are growing for blue-collar workers. 
The Democrats did not stand.
I was confused here. Does that mean that they don’t like blue-collar workers, or is it the improvement in their wages that Democrats oppose?

2.  Five million Americans have been lifted off food stamps. 
The Democrats did not stand.
Again. Confused. Five million people are no longer getting food stamps. That means that they are doing better. They are providing for themselves, probably because they have jobs now. Is that not a good thing?

3.  The U.S. economy is growing twice as fast today as when President Trump took office.  
The Democrats did not stand.
Do the Democrats not like that the economy is growing, or is it the implicit shaming of Obama they resent?

4.  Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over half a century.
The Democrats did not stand.
That’s a good thing, right? According to the Democrats, probably not — at least if they cannot take credit for it, which they cannot.

5.  Asian, African American, and Hispanic unemployment rate at lowest level ever recorded.
The Democrats did not stand.
Neither did Speaker Pelosi. I thought the Democrats were all about the racial divide and correcting the injustices being purposefully perpetrated against minorities in this country. Shouldn’t we therefore be celebrating an improvement in the economic standing of members of minority groups?
Nope, say the Democrats.

6.  Americans with disabilities unemployment rate at an all-time low.
The Democrats did not stand.
Who doesn’t cheer accomplishments by disabled Americans? Oh yeah, Democrats.

7.  More people are working now than at any time in the history of our country.  
The Democrats did not stand.
Is people having jobs not a good thing?

8. Right to try.  
The Democrats did not stand.
Okay. This one has to be bipartisan. The Right to Try law allows people with fatal conditions to try certain curative treatments despite not being approved by the FDA. It’s the legalization of the Hail Mary Pass in pharmacology. Surely, everyone is in favor of cutting through the bureaucratic nonsense to save a life, right?  Apparently not the Democrats.

9.  Companies are coming back in historic numbers.  
The Democrats did not stand.
I got nothing.

10.  The U.S. is the number one producer of oil and natural as in the world.
The Democrats did not stand — except one, Sen. Manchin from West Virginia.
They can’t stand this one! The President of the United States just exalted the destruction of the planet through the greater production of lethal green gases. Gases that will kill the earth! Never mind that those products keep our homes warm, help us cook our meals, or keep our biodegradable products cold so they won’t rot. On the other hand, who cares?  According to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the planet is ending in 12 years anyway.

11.  The U.S. is now a net exporter of energy.
The Democrats did not stand.
But what’s this? Pelosi clapped!?!? Perhaps just a confused moment.
Otherwise see #10.

12.  America is again winning each and every day.  
The Democrats did not stand.
Of course. The Democrats will perpetually root for anyone against the Patriots, and they’re still sore from their defeat in the Super Bowl at the hands of a Trump-loving quarterback against a team that, by its very name, celebrates patriotism.

13.  The state of our union is strong.
The Democrats did not stand, of course, and Pelosi smugly shook her head.
I understand that we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the direction we believe the country should be headed, but to deny that the state of the union is strong, particularly when the economy is buzzing, the unemployment rate is down, and (let’s face it) people are risking life and limb merely to be a part of us, is disingenuous to say the least. We should be celebrating the state of our union today, not dismissing it. And yes, always fighting for better.

14.  Another 304,000 jobs were added in the latest job numbers, almost double the number expected.
The Democrats did not stand.
All I can say is that they didn’t stand for this because a strong work force is a threat to the future of the Democratic Party.

15. And the granddaddy of them all, America will never be a socialist country!  
The Democrats did not stand.
A telling testament to the true intent of this crop of Democrats. They want to dismiss our foundational principles, destroy everything we’ve accomplished, and take us in the same direction as other nations with consistently calamitous results.

Given this atrocious behavior and what it foretells in policies, it actually would be best if Democrats stay seated and brood. The rest of us will continue to protect our freedoms and strive for greatness.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured image is by Pixabay.