President Trump’s Oval Office address last night made a security and safety centered case for upholding the rule of law and the importance of having a wall on America’s southern border. As the President noted, America welcomes legal immigrants and noted that Americans of all races and backgrounds will especially benefit from proper border policies.
As the robust debate over America’s southern border continues, one group stands out for its divisive rhetoric and blatant politicization of the issue. UnidosUS, formerly known as La Raza, continues to smear those who desire to enforce immigration law and promote the notion that legal immigrants aren’t welcome in America. Via Twitter:
UnidosUS has a clear record of opposing measures that would make our cities and communities safer. These activists have a long history of promoting sanctuary city policies in order to advance the left’s agenda, and they at the forefront of the left’s fight to prevent border security.
However, you might be surprised to learn the UnidosUS’s dangerous agenda is financed by well-known corporations using your dollars. Companies like AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart all directly fund the activists working to prevent border security and the enforcement of immigration law. (All of UnidosUS’ corporate backers can be seen here.)
We need your help holding these companies accountable for enabling UnidosUS:
1. Tell AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart to stop their support for this radical organization:
3. Sign the petition below! Let AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart know why you’ll be taking your business somewhere else until they stop funding UnidosUS’s divisive rhetoric and unsafe agenda.
When I wrote my post welcoming readers to my new blog, I told you I was writing to attempt to balance the news because you will be bombarded by stories over the next two years about how immigrants (New Americans is the preferred word) financially and culturally benefit your community.
Sure they may bring some benefits but also some problems and it is the problems that Open Borders pushers like the New American Economy (NAE) and Welcoming AmericaNEVER mention.
The chief propagandists behind the New American Economy. Does anyone think they have the best interests of average Americans at heart? Or is it all about cheap labor?
Someone has to do it—tell the rest of the story—and I’m hoping Frauds and Crookswill be a one-stop shop for cataloging stories about frauds and crimes that cost you and me both financially and from a security standpoint so that you can best decide where you stand on the issue of our time—migration.
We are in a tough battle because the Open Borders Left has joined with global giants to push more and more immigration down our throats.
Welcoming America Founder Lubell has a new position. He is working in Germany, Australia, New Zealand and the UK to help make them be more welcoming.
I saw a story this morning from Bowling Green, KY, a huge refugee resettlement site that I wrote about often at Refugee Resettlement Watch.
It’s about how the Chamber of Commerce and local government are working with NAE and their Gateways for Growth initiative to improve employment prospects for the “New Americans” living there.
Thirteen Communities Across the United States Make a Commitment to Welcome New Americans
Launched in December 2015, the Gateways for Growth Challenge is a competitive opportunity for local communities to receive direct technical assistance from New American Economy and Welcoming America to develop multi-sector plans for welcoming and integrating immigrants.
Here are the locations awarded grants for 2019:
Bowling Green, Kentucky Cedar Rapids, Iowa Charlotte, North Carolina Flint, Michigan Grand Rapids, Michigan Lexington, Kentucky Lowell, Massachusetts Memphis, Tennessee Northern Kentucky Roanoke, Virginia San Antonio, Texas Toledo-Lucas County, Ohio Wayne County, Michigan
You know the grants themselves are really not that great, but they buy media because every location on this list will likely generate warm and fuzzy local media coverage just like the story at the Bowling Green Daily News.
Has Bowling Green already forgotten that it is the location where two Iraqi refugee terrorists were arrested only a few years ago? Has that news been swept under the rug? Sure looks like it.
Are you seeing news in a local paper or on local TV about one of the other twelve locations, if so, send me a link!
Update: Thanks to Robin here is the puff-piece from Lexington, KY local news
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/welcoming-america-logo.jpg356640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-01-12 06:14:402019-01-12 06:14:42Is Your Community One of 13 Recognized for its Welcome to New Americans?
My inbox is being inundated with the question de jour: “If President Trump declares a ‘State of Emergency’ to build the wall on the border of Mexico, is that Constitutional?”
I am certain that is not the right question, or perhaps not the right way to ask it, but to ask it and answer it correctly, let’s briefly remind ourselves of America’s Constitutional structure and function.
The Constitution of the United States defines the powers for the three branches of federal government. Each of these branches are delegated specific enumerated powers that are not only limited and defined by the Constitution but also separate and distinct in their delegations. The branches of government do not share powers unless that specific cooperation is ascribed by the Constitution. For example, the power to create treaties (today referred to with the obfuscatory label — “deals”) is not an autonomous power belonging to the president but one that requires specific concurrence by the Senate.
Recall that the 10th Amendment declares that any power not delegated through the Constitution remains in the hands of the States. This is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “stewardship” doctrine that says the feds can do whatever they want as long as the Constitution doesn’t say they can’t. Federal Supremacists love this perspective. That was NOT the discussion or conclusion of the ratification debates. There are no unnamed powers floating in the ether waiting to be snatched up by the central government. Roosevelt’s Secretary of War William Taft rightly conveyed the framers’ positions, “a specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which (the federal government) can exercise because it seems…to be in the public interest…”
The specific delegations of power, as well as NON-delegations, were created thoughtfully, deliberately, with knowledge of history and human nature. The limitations of those powers involved considerable debate and study into past history and ancient governments.
Patrick Henry said in his famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #20: “Experience is the oracle of truth…”
However, it is not uncommon in the evolution of the American Republic to see the government AND the citizenry cast off the wisdom and experience enshrined in the founding documents to address some “urgent necessity.” Instead of taking the intentionally cumbersome path to do it right, Americans willingly run roughshod over Constitutional barriers because — “we have to get this done ,” or “there is no other way to do it!” These instances have slowly transmuted the Republic into the nearly limitless federal behemoth we know today. We would be well-served to paste a banner over our televisions and computers reminding us of what William Pitt said in 1783:
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
So when people ask questions like “Can the president do…?” “Can the House, Senate, or Supreme Court do…?” the first sources that must be consulted are the Constitution and the people who drafted it. If the Constitution provides no authority for the activity, then the power does not Constitutionally reside in the hands the federal government. So more to the root of the question being asked, “Does the Constitution enumerate a power to the President to declare a state of emergency?” The short answer is No.S
Every state of emergency refers to the National Emergencies Acts as the source of its authority. So the real question is “Does the Constitution authorize Congress to alter (expand or contract) executive power by legislative act?” The constitutional answer to this question is obviously No. Congress cannot add powers that the Constitution has not delegated to the president nor can they take away powers that have been delegated. For Congress to have the authority to add power to the executive branch, they would have to possess the authority to actually amend the Constitution by congressional act, which they do not. Additionally, for Congress to delegate a power to the executive branch that has been constitutionally delegated to Congress, is a per se violation of the Constitution by crushing the principle of Separation of Powers. James Madison, quoting political philosopher Montesquieu, was very direct with his words regarding separation of powers:
“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates…” Federalist #47
Spending, war, appropriations, national defense, and naturalization are all powers specifically delegated to Congress. For Congress to abdicate its power to the executive branch is not only not authorized by the Constitution, it is necessarily forbidden by the principle of Separation of Powers to ensure the security of the Liberty of the people.
Shockingly, this debate over states of emergency has raged for decades and nobody seems to offer the obvious correct answer — if we want the President to have such powers we must amend the Constitution.
Yet if you consider how far we have strayed and how long we have been off the path, President Trump is doing nothing out of the ordinary, he is following a long history of extra-Constitutional (aka unconstitutional) action. We have just accepted a broken government as the norm since at least 1861 when it comes to “national emergencies.”
If you tell a lie long enough, people believe it to be truth and the lie of expanded executive power has a long history. I think this principle is even more powerful when that lie comes from someone you like, or applies to a situation you happen to agree with. But that lie can only operate as truth with very dire consequences, the most obvious consequence would be that the lie operates as truth not only for the people you like but also the people you don’t like.
Some claim expansion of executive power began with the George Washington administration’s response to the whiskey rebellion. Yet in this instance, Congress authorized Washington to quell an “insurrection” which falls within the constitutional authority of both Congress and President. It was Congress that then began creating “stand-by laws” to give the President powers beyond the grant of the Constitution in time of “national emergency.” They should have proposed a Constitutional amendment, not passed a law. (Interestingly, Washington later pardoned everyone who was arrested during the rebellion, if they were not already acquitted.)
The first unilateral act of a president arose when Lincoln blockaded American ports and expanded military forces without Congress. The Congress and the courts eventually went along and this became the confirmation and justification of the President’s emergency power. Woodrow Wilson and FDR faced similar emergency power controversies and were not thwarted by Congress. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson started the “Presidential Proclamation” that triggered the availability of all so-called stand-by laws for these declarations of emergency. The process came to a head when, after Truman proclaimed an emergency in response to Korean hostilities, the same order was used to wage war in Vietnam 22 years later.
Congress, led by Senator Church, launched an investigation. One of numerous Congressional studies in 1973 showed that the Congress had already passed over 470 statutes granting the President “EXTRAORDINARY POWERS” during time of emergency. In an attempt to restrain and proceduralize the use of emergency powers, perhaps restrain the monster they allowed to grow, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act on in September of 1976.
In light of the fact that Congress is not authorized through Congressional act to expand delegated authority, consider these two points from two constitutional delegates:
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Federalist #78 — Alexander Hamilton
“…the power of the Constitution predominates. Any thing (sic), therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.” James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787
The Constitution, as well, is not silent on this issue. Article 6 clause 2 codifies the principles laid down by the above drafters of the Constitution when it says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Every law must be made, every federal action must be taken, “in pursuance” to the Constitution. If that act is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, then the “Judges in every State” are NOT bound thereby. What that means is the “National Emergencies Act,” “War Powers Act,” 8 US 1182- empowering the president to determine the admissibility of aliens, and many, many others are all unconstitutional delegations of power by Congress to the president. Which makes them, by the terms of the Constitution AND the drafters of that document, null and void.
So the question is NOT: “If the President declares a national emergency and builds the wall, is that Constitutional?” That’s an easy question to answer, No. The question is “Will we keep pretending to live in a Constitutional Republic, while making it up as we go along?” Other than electing a Congress that actually cares for the security, safety and integrity of the nation, there are two simple options: Amend the Constitution and have the states give the president this authority or stop pretending, get rid of the Constitution and go back to a monarchy.
ABOUT KRISANNE HALL, JD
KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/anthony-garand-500755-unsplash-5-e1547288007409.jpg427640Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2019-01-12 05:17:422019-01-14 06:23:10The Constitutionality of A Presidential State of Emergency
It was just last week that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised the American people that her House would be “bipartisan and unifying.” Eight days later, there isn’t a scrap of evidence she meant it. After 20 days of waiting at the negotiating table, President Trump is considering going it alone on the border wall. One of the options being tossed around by the White House is declaring a national emergency — an idea some people think is too far-fetched. But is it? Legal experts say no.
Believe it or not, these types of national emergencies aren’t as unusual as you might think. In two years, President Trump has already declared three. Since 1976, when Congress gave the White House that authority, there have been 58 national emergency declarations — 31 of which, Breitbart’s Ken Klukowski explains, are still in effect today. That includes, Ken points out, the very first national emergency from Jimmy Carter on Iran-sponsored terrorism. But is it, I asked him on Thursday’s “Washington Watch,” a legitimate legal option for the border wall?
“Right now,” Ken said, “the president is going the extra mile with Senate Democrats. The law does not require him to negotiate. He is doing so, and I believe he’s doing so in good faith — trying to find a settlement for everyone to save face.” But, he went on, “in the event that Pelosi and Schumer continue to dig in their heels… the president has unconditional authority to declare a national emergency about anything.”
“Contrary to what you’re hearing from partisan Democrats — and also from hyperventilating media pundits, who are all of the sudden calling themselves legal experts — the fact that there [have] been 31 of these shows how common it is for presidents to do it. If Trump declares a border emergency, [then]… under [the U.S. code], the secretary of Defense can then order military units — including the Army Corps of Engineers and the other construction units of the U.S. military — to direct their personnel and their funding and money and machinery to construction projects… There are billions of dollars that are available to DOD to be able to undertake that project, if the president decides to declare a national emergency.”
After all, this is Defense Department money that’s already been approved by Congress. The president would simply be redirecting it to another national security crisis: the flood of illegal immigrants, drugs, and criminals crossing the border. And in this case, there’s already a precedent for using national emergency declaration to stop the flow of heroin and cocaine into the country. Back in the 1990s, Bill Clinton used the same kind of declaration to deal with narcotics traffickers. As Ken argued in his column, “one of the deadliest drugs killing Americans right now, fentanyl, is made in China — but fully 85 percent of that lethal drug enters the United States through the Mexican border. Such a declaration would be consistent in scope and effect with many of the 31 current emergencies.”
Of course, as with everything this president does, there would almost certainly be lawsuits — even if it’s well within Trump’s legal power to act. “The reality,” Ken says, “is that you’ll always find someone who files a lawsuit… And if you pick the right judicial district, dominated by left-of-center judges, you’re running a pretty good odds that you’re going to get a judge who dares to go where no judge has gone before… We have seen some federal judges at the trial level act like they are nothing short of the resistance of Donald Trump. We have seen some outrageous judicial activist rulings from federal judges…” Even on issues where the Supreme Court would almost certainly side with the president, there’s a good chance the legal battle would put everything on hold for a good “12 or 18 months.”
Of course, “Can the president?” and “Should the president?” are two very different questions. Most people, Donald Trump included, would like to solve this problem legislatively. “I would like to do the deal through Congress,” he’s said. “It makes sense to do the deal through Congress… It would be nice if we can make a deal, but dealing with these people is ridiculous.” The longer Democrats refuse to do their jobs, the more creative Republicans will have to get in order to protect America.
For more on the immigration crisis, check out my column in today’s Washington Times, “Protecting America’s National Home.” Also, don’t miss my full interview with Ken Klukowski, as he takes a deeper look at the prospects of a national emergency declaration.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/011119_shutdown_770x400-e1547254451304.jpg372640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-01-11 19:54:522019-03-07 05:58:10PODCAST: In Case of Emergency, Build Wall?
President Donald J. Trump stated, “This barrier is absolutely critical to border security. It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need. It’s just common sense.”
EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Kat J on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/kat-j-525336-unsplash-e1547246550516.jpg428640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-11 17:45:182019-01-11 17:45:19VIDEO: These Are The Families Impacted By Illegal Immigration
If the Democrats wouldn’t talk, then President Trump decided to go to the people who would: the men and women protecting America’s border. Earlier this afternoon, the president touched down in Texas for his first on-the-ground briefing since last March. This time around, things are different. Stuck in a 20-day government shutdown with no liberal cooperation in sight, the message is obvious — for the country to get a wall, Republicans will have to be one.
So far, the White House shows no signs of cracking. Yesterday, when “Fox & Friends'” Steve Doocy said the president’s supporters don’t want him “to cave,” Trump raced to Twitter to assure them, “I won’t!” If Democrats think the border is a problem, then they’ll come to the negotiating table and prove it. Until then, the president says, the federal government will remain partially closed. As far as he’s concerned, this administration doesn’t waver — and an issue of national security isn’t the place to start.
Meanwhile, the media is hoping the GOP isn’t nearly as determined as its leader. After a handful of Republicans voted for a non-wall Treasury bill, the rumors started flying that some party members were wobbling. Not true, Trump fired back. “There is GREAT unity with the Republicans in the House and Senate, despite the Fake News Media working in overdrive to make the story look otherwise. The Opposition Party & the Dems know we must have Strong Border Security, but don’t want to give ‘Trump’ another one of many wins!” he tweeted. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) agreed. “Quite frankly, I see no wavering,” Meadows said. Another House member backed him up, telling the Washington Post that, contrary to the rumors, conservatives are “dug in.” “We really believe in our souls that we have a responsibility to the American people to secure the border.”
Elsewhere, Democrats keep making the same illogical point — that border walls are immoral. That’s interesting, the Wall Street Journal points out, since these same liberals (Pelosi and Schumer included) voted to spend $1.6 billion on a wall last March! “Were they immoral?” “Was Senator Barack Obama mistaken in 2006, when he praised the passage of legislation providing for ‘better fences and better security along our borders?’ Was President Obama engaged in a ‘vanity project’ in 2009 as he oversaw construction of roughly 133 miles of fence, barriers, and wall along the border?”
Let’s be honest. The Left’s objections aren’t about cost or morality or efficiency — they’re about the president. “The Democrat platform in 2008 basically supports virtually everything the Republican President of the United States said today,” Mark Levin argues. “The American people haven’t changed. The Republican Party hasn’t changed. The Democrats for political reasons and power reasons, they’ve changed — and they want to drag us all off the cliff with them.”
Others, like Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) are trying to ignore the cold, hard facts. On Tuesday night, the president made a point of explaining that not everyone is coming to America with good intentions. “In the last two years,” he explained, “ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings.” That upset Castro, who thinks it’s an unfair characterization of the illegal population. “These people, unlike what the president says, are not coming to harm Americans.”
He’s right. Not everyone crossing the border illegally is a physical threat. But just because these migrants don’t intendto harm America doesn’t mean they haven’t. Our country spends $200 billion on illegal immigration every year. That’s $70,000 per illegal (and seven times the cost of deporting them). Suddenly, a $5.7 billion wall doesn’t sound so expensive. And while the media likes to focus on the unfortunate federal workers being treated like hostages by the Democrats, most of whom will eventually get paid, what about the money that taxpayers are shelling out that they’ll never get back? The trillions of dollars in social services, housing, and tighter immigration enforcement — all because these people refused to go to a legal point of entry.
As President Trump said, “This is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice… When I took the Oath of Office, I swore to protect our country. And that is what I will always do, so help me God.”
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
RELATED VIDEO: President Trump’s full remarks before his trip to the U.S. border by CNBC Television.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by the Family Research Council is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/011019_wall_770x400-e1547206541747.jpg376640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-01-11 06:41:412019-01-11 16:59:03Back to the Drawing Border
The Defense Department has relinquished over $27 billion to the U.S. Treasury since 2013 simply because it couldn’t spend the money quick enough, according to a DOD Inspector General report released Tuesday.
The DOD was required to fork over the “expired funds” because the Pentagon failed to spend it “within the legal timeframes,” according to the report.
The revelation comes as President Donald Trump is considering declaring a state of emergency that would allow him to bypass Congress and leverage unobligated military funds to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The partial shutdown of the federal government entered its 19th day on Wednesday as Trump remains steadfast in his demand for $5.7 billion in border wall funding from Congress. Democrats, in turn, say they won’t negotiate with the president on the wall until the government reopens.
Legal analysts say Trump would have the authority to leverage unused DOD funds to construct a wall in the event he declares a national emergency.
“My instinct is to say that if he declares a national emergency and uses this pot of unappropriated money for the wall, he’s on very solid legal ground,” Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet told NBC News.
The Pentagon reported an “expired unobligated balance” of $27.7 billion in its most recent financial report, a figure that represents the amount of unused funds the Pentagon returned to the Department of the Treasury during the five-year period between fiscal years 2013 and 2018.
Funds from the federal government “expire” if they aren’t obligated on a contract anywhere between one to three years after their date of appropriation, according to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group.
The $27.7 billion the Pentagon returned to the Treasury between FYs 2013 and 2018 represents “approximately 1 percent of our overall budget,” Pentagon spokesperson Chris Sherwood told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “It’s not as big as it may seem.”
A border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border could cost up to $21.6 billion, the Department of Homeland Security reported in 2017.
The Pentagon lost out on even more funds between FYs 2012 and 2017, when it failed to spend $33.6 billion on time, according to the DOD’s financial report.
Despite the Pentagon’s failure to fully commit its existing budgets on time, Trump has backed plans to increase the DOD’s budget to $750 billion in FY 2020, an 8 percent hike from the $692 billion defense budget signed into law in December 2017, according to Task & Purpose.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by The Daily Caller is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-pence-2-e1547126211989.jpg352640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2019-01-10 08:19:382019-03-06 18:04:27DOD IG Reveals The Pentagon Let $27.7 Billion ‘Expire’ As Trump Seeks $5.7 Billion In Border Wall Funding
A vast majority of American voters believe that the United States is facing a “crisis” or a “problem” on the southern border, according to a new poll by Politico and Morning Consult.
While less than half of those surveyed (42 percent) agree with President Donald Trump’s assertion that the border is in “crisis,” another 37 percent concede that there is a “problem” — meaning 79 percent of voters believe the situation at the border is a serious issue.
Only 12 percent of voters polled said that the situation at the border is neither a crisis nor a problem.
According to data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an average of nearly 2,000 immigrants are apprehended at the border each day attempting to cross illegally into the United States.
The poll, which was conducted January 4-6 during the second week of the partial government shutdown, also found that 44 percent of respondents support a border wall.
While Trump previously took credit for the government shutdown in an Oval Office meeting with then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, he is now shifting the blame to Democrats, who he says are refusing to negotiate until the government is re-opened. However, 47 percent of those polled say Trump is mostly to blame and just 33 percent say Democrats are to blame for the continual shutdown.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by The Daily Caller is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-border-e1547080048685.jpg379640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2019-01-09 19:27:522019-01-10 09:56:21Poll: 79 Percent Of Americans Think Border Is In ‘Crisis’ Or Is A ‘Problem’
President Trump’s Oval Office Speech; a disaster for Democrats. Alexandria-Cortez says facts matter and then overtly lies about the President. Rod Rosenstein to leave DOJ.
RELATED VIDEOS:
Build The Wall: The Best Argument You Will Ever Hear!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/luke-stackpoole-670781-unsplash-1.jpg366640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2019-01-09 09:54:172019-01-09 10:09:15PODCAST: President Trump’s Oval Office Speech; a disaster for Democrats
Tonight, I am speaking to you because there is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.
Every day, Customs and Border Patrol agents encounter thousands of illegal immigrants trying to enter our country. We are out of space to hold them, and we have no way to promptly return them back home to their country.
America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation. But all Americans are hurt by uncontrolled, illegal migration. It strains public resources and drives down jobs and wages. Among those hardest hit are African Americans and Hispanic Americans.
Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across from our southern border. More Americans will die from drugs this year than were killed in the entire Vietnam War.
In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings. Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country, and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now.
This is a humanitarian crisis — a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.
Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United States — a dramatic increase. These children are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs. One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico. Women and children are the biggest victims, by far, of our broken system.
This is the tragic reality of illegal immigration on our southern border. This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.
My administration has presented Congress with a detailed proposal to secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers. It’s a tremendous problem. Our proposal was developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents at the Department of Homeland Security. These are the resources they have requested to properly perform their mission and keep America safe. In fact, safer than ever before.
The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things. We have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy. Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support.
Furthermore, we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back home.
Finally, as part of an overall approach to border security, law enforcement professionals have requested $5.7 billion for a physical barrier. At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall. This barrier is absolutely critical to border security. It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need. This is just common sense.
The border wall would very quickly pay for itself. The cost of illegal drugs exceeds $500 billion a year — vastly more than the $5.7 billion we have requested from Congress. The wall will also be paid for, indirectly, by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.
Senator Chuck Schumer — who you will be hearing from later tonight — has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected President.
Democrats in Congress have refused to acknowledge the crisis. And they have refused to provide our brave border agents with the tools they desperately need to protect our families and our nation.
The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats will not fund border security.
My administration is doing everything in our power to help those impacted by the situation. But the only solution is for Democrats to pass a spending bill that defends our borders and re-opens the government.
This situation could be solved in a 45-minute meeting. I have invited Congressional leadership to the White House tomorrow to get this done. Hopefully, we can rise above partisan politics in order to support national security.
Some have suggested a barrier is immoral. Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside. The only thing that is immoral is the politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to be so horribly victimized.
America’s heart broke the day after Christmas when a young police officer in California was savagely murdered in cold blood by an illegal alien, who just came across the border. The life of an American hero was stolen by someone who had no right to be in our country.
Day after day, precious lives are cut short by those who have violated our borders. In California, an Air Force veteran was raped, murdered, and beaten to death with a hammer by an illegal alien with a long criminal history. In Georgia, an illegal alien was recently charged with murder for killing, beheading, and dismembering his neighbor. In Maryland, MS-13 gang members who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied minors were arrested and charged last year after viciously stabbing and beating a 16-year-old girl.
Over the last several years, I’ve met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration. I’ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers. So sad. So terrible. I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, and the sadness gripping their souls.
How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?
To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: Imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?
To every member of Congress: Pass a bill that ends this crisis.
To every citizen: Call Congress and tell them to finally, after all of these decades, secure our border.
This is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice. This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we serve.
When I took the Oath of Office, I swore to protect our country. And that is what I will always do, so help me God.
Thank you and goodnight.
TRANSCRIPT OF THE FULL REMARKS OF SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE CONGRESSWOMAN NANCY PELOSI (D-CA) AND SENATE MINORITY LEADER SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY)
Speaker Pelosi.
Good evening. I appreciate the opportunity to speak directly to the American people tonight about how we can end this shutdown and meet the needs of the American people.
Sadly, much of what we have heard from President Trump throughout this senseless shutdown has been full of misinformation and even malice.
The President has chosen fear. We want to start with the facts.
The fact is: On the very first day of this Congress, House Democrats passed Senate Republican legislation to re-open government and fund smart, effective border security solutions.
But the President is rejecting these bipartisan bills which would re-open government – over his obsession with forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an expensive and ineffective wall – a wall he always promised Mexico would pay for!
The fact is: President Trump has chosen to hold hostage critical services for the health, safety and well-being of the American people and withhold the paychecks of 800,000 innocent workers across the nation – many of them veterans.
He promised to keep government shutdown for ‘months or years’ – no matter whom it hurts. That’s just plain wrong.
The fact is: We all agree that we need to secure our borders, while honoring our values: we can build the infrastructure and roads at our ports of entry; we can install new technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming into our nation; we can hire the personnel we need to facilitate trade and immigration at the border; and we can fund more innovation to detect unauthorized crossings.
The fact is: the women and children at the border are not a security threat, they are a humanitarian challenge – a challenge that President Trump’s own cruel and counterproductive policies have only deepened.
And the fact is: President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must re-open the government.
Thank you.
Senator Schumer.
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi.
My fellow Americans, we address you tonight for one reason only: the President of the United States – having failed to get Mexico to pay for his ineffective, unnecessary border wall, and unable to convince the Congress or the American people to foot the bill – has shut down the government.
American democracy doesn’t work that way. We don’t govern by temper tantrum. No president should pound the table and demand he gets his way or else the government shuts down, hurting millions of Americans who are treated as leverage.
Tonight – and throughout this debate and his presidency – President Trump has appealed to fear, not facts. Division, not unity.
Make no mistake: Democrats and the President both want stronger border security. However, we sharply disagree with the President about the most effective way to do it.
So, how do we untangle this mess?
There is an obvious solution: separate the shutdown from the arguments over border security. There is bipartisan legislation – supported by Democrats and Republicans – to re-open government while allowing debate over border security to continue.
There is no excuse for hurting millions of Americans over a policy difference. Federal workers are about to miss a paycheck. Some families can’t get a mortgage to buy a new home. Farmers and small businesses won’t get loans they desperately need.
Most presidents have used Oval Office addresses for noble purposes. This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention from the turmoil in his Administration.
My fellow Americans, there is no challenge so great that our nation cannot rise to meet it. We can re-open the government AND continue to work through disagreements about policy. We can secure our border without an expensive, ineffective wall. And we can welcome legal immigrants and refugees without compromising safety and security.
The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a thirty-foot wall.
So our suggestion is a simple one: Mr. President: re-open the government and we can work to resolve our differences over border security. But end this shutdown now.
Thank you.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Trump delivering an Oval Office address on Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2018 on border security. Photo via WINK News.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/President-Trump-delivers-an-Oval-Office-address-on-Tuesday-Jan.-8-2018..jpg363640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-09 07:34:242019-01-09 07:34:25VIDEO: President Trump’s Address To The Nation On Border Security
NumbersUSA is urging its supporters to get behind this legislation.
Coming to America to have a baby has got to be one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on Americans.
You can’t go to any other major country in the world (except Canada), have a baby and claim a right for that child to be a citizen of the country in which the mother happened to give birth. The practice has actually become an industry in some parts of the US.
For the fifth consecutive Congress, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced H.R. 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act, that would prevent children born to illegal-alien parents in the United States from automatically receiving U.S. citizenship. The bill was introduced with 20 original cosponsors.
The Birthright Citizenship Act would restrict the granting of automatic citizenship to newborns who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. The legislation would also allow the granting of automatic citizenship to newborns who have at least one parent who is an alien serving the armed forces.
The Birthright Citizenship Act is one of NumbersUSA’s 5 Great Solutions to reforming the nation’s immigration system. The United States is one of only two industrialized nations (Canada) to still grant automatic citizenship to all children born in the country.
Below are the brave co-sponsors so far. Numbers wants you to put pressure on your member of Congress to grow a spine and support H.R. 140.
Here are the co-sponsors so far (if you are represented by one of these members, THANK THEM FOR PUTTING AMERICA FIRST!):
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-5)
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ-4)
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-5)
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL-3)
Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL-11)
Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA-10)
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD-1)
Rep. Steven M. Palazzo (R-MS-4)
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO-6)
Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC-7)
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC-11)
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH-8)
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA-4)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC-2)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC-3)
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC-5)
Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN-4)
Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX-11)
Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX-14)
Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX-36)
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI-6)
Tell your member to stop this fraud on America! It is an opportunity to go on the political offense for a change!
Why don’t the rest of the Republicans get it—this scam is about giving birth to the next generation of Democrats!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rep-steve-king.jpg360640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-01-08 16:36:442019-01-08 16:38:27Rep. Steve King Introduces Legislation to End Birthright Citizenship
Tonight, the President of the United States will be addressing the nation regarding the issue of border security. It is expected that the President will provide a defense of his tough stance on his demands to fund the wall. He will likely paint a dire picture of conditions south of the border. He will share with the country the challenges faced due to inadequate resources and the lack of a physical barrier. And in all likelihood the President’s message will make sense and will resonate with the American people who, although squeamish on government shutdowns, overwhelmingly demand that the federal government enforce our borders and ensure our safety and welfare.
In response, Democrats have asked the networks for an opportunity to rebut; an opportunity they will surely be given. But their request brings up two issues; one an inductive conclusion and the other an inescapable paradox.
The conclusion is that the Democrats worry they are losing the war of words regarding border security. With every week that passes, the Democrats lose what they have always deployed as their greatest weapon regarding government shutdowns: shock value. Theirs is the tactic of equating a government shutdown with the end of the world. They do this, not only to paint the Republicans as evil, uncaring, and irresponsible, but also because to Democrats, the role of government is indispensable to life in society. Even a partial shutdown, for them, is tantamount to a cataclysmic natural disaster.
But as the weeks grind on, the American people continue to see that the partial government shutdown, by and large, is not a threat to their daily existence. People are continuing to get their healthcare. Their banks are still doing business. The military is still operating, and yes, the IRS is working on delivering those precious refund checks.
But despite the fading, fake cataclysm of the shutdown, the permanent truth of the inadequacies of our border’s security continues to shine. The problems south of the border continue to exist, and the multi-thousand-member caravans preparing to attempt to stroll into the United States continue to form.
The net effect is a nasty, rancid, and tumultuous loss for the Democrats, and Democrats know it. Add to their losing effort a presidential address on the matter from the Oval Office, and the result is potentially catastrophic to their indefensible cause. It is for this reason that Democratic leaders wish to speak to the American people tonight, bringing us to the second issue: how can they speak when they won’t even listen?
Democratic leaders, chief amongst these are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have engaged in the highly obnoxious and potentially destructive strategy of not listening to their political opponents, particularly to those may have developed an expertise on the field. When border security agents appeared at the White House Press Room and discussed their first-hand accounts regarding the indispensable importance of a barrier to border security, the Democrats’ dismissive answer was simply to say that the agents were wrong. No facts to back them up; just the assertion.
And when President Trump invited Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen to a meeting with the President and leaders from both parties at the White House, Pelosi’s and Schumer’s response was to repeatedly interrupt her, and again, claim she was wrong.
So now, the two leaders who have recurrently demonstrated an unwillingness and incapacity to listen to opposing points of view want us to listen to them.
My initial inclination is: what for?
The fact is that I, as opposed to them, will listen to what they have to say. I will do this out of respect for our political process and because I recognize that our country has devolved to a state where we have refused to listen to each other, and Pelosi and Schumer have painted themselves into being part of the problem.
In the end, however, I am confident I will side with the President for, amongst other reasons, his opponents’ demonstrated reluctance to learn from what the President and those charged with working directly on the issue of border security have to say.
Despite their appearance tonight to rebut the President, I will likely conclude that Pelosi and Schumer are part of the problem; not the solution.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ken-treloar-346065-unsplash-e1546982130791.jpg454639Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2019-01-08 16:15:452019-01-08 16:22:01Schumer And Pelosi Want Us To Listen To Them After The President Speaks; What For?
On the eve of President Donald Trump’s prime-time address to the nation Tuesday night about border security, Vice President Mike Pence asserted that congressional Democrats are unwilling to negotiate.
After weekend talks, senior Democratic congressional staffers agreed with Trump administration officials that a crisis exists at the southern border, but weren’t ready to negotiate a plan to address it, Pence said Monday.
“Senior Democratic staff did not dispute our facts about the border,” Pence told reporters at a briefing in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, held in the same conference room where the weekend talks occurred.
Trump is trying to reach an agreement with congressional Democrats to gain funding for a wall along the southern border and end the partial government shutdown that began Dec. 22.
Trump announced Monday that he will deliver the address to the nation at 9 p.m. Tuesday, then visit the border Thursday.
“They informed us they would not negotiate until the government is opened,” Pence said. “The president is not going to reopen the government on the promise that negotiations will go on sometime after.”
Democrats asked the administration for revised budget estimates based on Trump’s requests for increased border security.
The biggest request from Trump in the revision is $5.7 billion for construction of a steel border wall, a $4.1 billion increase from the Senate-passed bill in December designed to keep the government running.
Pence got multiple questions about Trump’s comment Friday that he has considered declaring a national emergency to build and pay for the wall. The vice president said he hopes it doesn’t come to that, adding that he believes Democrats care about border security.
“What I’m aware of is that he is looking at it. The president is considering it,” Pence said. “There is no reason in the world that Congress shouldn’t be about rolling their sleeves up and compromising and working together on the crisis on the southern border.”
Many Democrats voted in 2006 to build fencing or another barrier along the border, but the needed money never has been appropriated.
Congress has funded most of the government. The current shutdown affects only about 25 percent of the government, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, State, and Transportation.
Pence said he sympathizes with the 800,000 federal employees affected by the partial shutdown, but also with “tens of millions of Americans” who expect the government to provide stronger border security.
The vice president also said Trump made a “good faith offer” to Democrats on the day the shutdown began to keep the government open. Pence declined to provide specifics.
The administration is working to make the partial shutdown “as painless as possible consistent with the law,” said Russell Vought, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Vought said the National Park Service will have the money to ensure trash pickup and clean restrooms through the end of the month, and that the IRS will mail out tax refund checks on time.
The administration’s revised budget estimate for fiscal year 2019 also includes a $563 million request for 75 additional immigration judges—consistent with what the Senate passed in its bill to keep the government running.
The administration asks for $211 million in the revised request to hire 750 more Customs and Border Protection agents—an increase of $100 million over the Senate version.
Trump also wants $571 million for 2,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, which was not included in the Senate bill, and $4.2 billion to pay for 52,000 ICE detention beds—a $798 million increase from the Senate bill.
Pence identified two areas in the revised budget request as “consensus items” where congressional Democrats agree with the administration.
One is Trump’s request for $800 million to address humanitarian needs at the border, including medical support, temporary facilities for processing, and short-term custody of vulnerable populations. The agreement includes in-country processing of asylum requests by unaccompanied minors.
The other item of agreement is spending $675 million on technology designed to allow Customs and Border Protection to “detect and deter” contraband such as drugs and guns and materials that pose nuclear and radiological threats.
Pence said the administration’s stand “isn’t about” pleasing the president’s voter base but about border security, because the president is “driven by the facts” at the border.
Many of the facts are included in a Department of Homeland Security reportthat DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen initially provided to Congress before talking about Monday with reporters at the briefing.
The DHS report says the solutions are finishing the border wall, updating the law on how to treat unaccompanied children, and reversing the Clinton-era “Flores settlement” that required officials to separate some children from adults in family units.
The numbers show a 73 percent increase in fentanyl, one of the deadliest drugs, at the southern border from fiscal 2017 to fiscal 2018. That amounts to 2,400 pounds.
The agency also reports a 38 percent increase in methamphetamine at the southern border over the last fiscal year, and a 38 percent increase in heroin.
Criminal organizations gain $2.5 billion in annual profit from smuggling migrants into the U.S., the DHS report says.
In fiscal 2018, which ended Sept. 30, Customs and Border Protection agents caught 17,000 adults at the southern border who had criminal records. They captured 3,755 known or suspected terrorists entering the U.S. in fiscal 2017.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement also apprehended 6,000 members of gangs, including the violent MS-13, at the border.
The report states that the past five years saw a 2,000 percent increase in asylum claims, yet 72 percent of migrants report making the journey for economic reasons, so they wouldn’t qualify for asylum.
The report says 60,000 unaccompanied children and 161,000 family units arrived in fiscal 2018. About 50 migrants per day are referred to medical providers.
Customs and Border Protection rescues about 4,300 migrants in distress each year, according to the report, which also says that 31 percent of female migrants say they were sexually assaulted on the journey to the U.S.
Immigration courts have a backlog of nearly 800,000 cases and 98 percent of family units and unaccompanied alien children never are removed from the country, the report says.
Asked why Trump didn’t request the $5.7 billion in his budget proposal for fiscal 2019, Nielsen told reporters that “the humanitarian crisis has skyrocketed since February.”
During an early morning traffic stop in a small town near the Bay Area, everything we fight against came together in a perfect storm and led to the death of a man who symbolized everything we at NRATV stand for. The man in question was a police officer, a legal immigrant, a father and a husband. But he served a community bound by laws that put him last.
Illegal immigration, the war on cops, illegal-weapons possession, all embodied by a man in a pickup, joined together and ended the life of a law enforcement officer. With no regard for life, no respect for law enforcement, and no regrets for his actions, an illegal immigrant, who escaped deportation twice because of sanctuary-city laws, wielded an illegal weapon and carried out an attack on one of America’s finest.
For days, the murderer was on the run, asking for help from those who would, doing everything he could to traverse the hundreds of miles back to his home country of Mexico. He sought refuge from the demands of American law.
He had crossed the border into Arizona illegally years before, but that didn’t matter to the California state government. They welcomed it.
He was a prime candidate for deportation, but that didn’t matter to state law enforcement. They concealed it.
He had already been arrested twice for driving while intoxicated, but that didn’t matter to the judge. He pardoned it.
Gustavo Perez Arriaga was a product of political correctness, disrespect for the rule of law, and prosecutorial discretion run amok. Because of the implementation of these progressive positions, Gustavo Perez Arriaga was enabled to kill Cpl. Ronil Singh.
All Ronil Singh ever wanted was move to the United States and become a cop. To him, there was no better place than America and no nobler profession than that of police officer—at least that’s what he told Newman Police Chief Randy Richardson almost eight years ago. “[I] came here solely to be a police officer and be a part of this country,” the Fiji native said, “to protect what was given and allowed to [me].”
But on the day after Christmas, during what seemed to be a relatively routine call, Cpl. Singh came face to face with a deadly and counterfeit version of the American dream and lost his life.
Gustavo Perez Arriaga, who was later revealed to actually be named Paulo Virgen Mendoza, fled the scene, but after a two-day manhunt, he was caught 200 miles away from the scene of the crime.
U.S. Southern Border.
For the 12 years he served as governor of California, Jerry Brown gave his stamp of approval on countless bills that have resulted in anti-cop legislation and California’s current and illegal status as a sanctuary state. California is a place where neither the law nor the Second Amendment matter—a place where political correctness reigns freely and the lives of law enforcement officers are just a bump in the road to Utopia.
California is a place where neither the law nor the Second Amendment matter.
The laws aren’t unique to California, though. The House of Representatives is controlled by the party of open borders, sanctuary cities, and the war on cops. They continue to pursue an agenda that will leave countless in its wake, solely for a strengthened voting bloc and perpetual power.
It’s up to us—those who are members of a group we call freedom’s safest place—to make our voices heard, to make a stand for the American dream, for legal immigration, for a secure border, for the lives of our officers, and for a safe and prosperous country.
EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/border-patrol.jpg339600NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-01-06 16:29:132019-01-06 16:29:15The American Way of Life Was Assaulted in the Murder of Cpl. Ronil Singh
This is one of the better stories I’ve read on the funeral for a man, an immigrant who gave everything for America, who should be alive today. Instead some Mexican low-life who allegedly entered the US illegally is still breathing.
CrossPoint Community Church overflowed with mourners. The main Worship Hall was standing-room only, reserved for uniformed law enforcement and family members.
Three additional viewing areas inside the church for the general public also were packed and in Newman a livestream viewing was held at Orestimba High School.
[….]
The funeral for the 33-year-old Singh, who was shot and killed while performing a traffic stop in the early hours of Dec. 26, drew some 4,000 people and officers from more than 100 agencies up-and-down the state, as far away as New York and Massachusetts and even two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
[….]
The family immigrated to the United States in 2003, and he worked his way up working various positions at local law enforcement agencies including the Modesto Police and Turlock Police departments and the Merced County Sheriff’s Department. Then in 2011 he achieved his dream of becoming a police officer when he was hired by the Newman Police Department. He was promoted to become a K9 officer in 2013 and the rank of corporal in 2016.
[….]
Aside from the speakers’ voices, the quiet hall was interrupted only by laughter at Singh’s jokester antics and the occasional burbling sounds of Singh’s five-month-old son, Arnav, who sat in the front row held by with his widow, Anamika Chand-Singh.
[….]
About 2,000 law enforcement representatives took part. Modesto Police Department spokesman Billy Boyle said he had never seen as large a combined police and public turnout as at the funeral service, and that it spoke to the close relationship local law enforcement has with the community.
And, it spoke to the public’s universal outrage at the monstrous unfairness of it —that an illegal alien creep who shouldn’t have been in the country in the first place allegedly took Singh’s life.
Donate to the family through the police department
There is no official GoFundMeaccount for the family. The Stanislaus County PD makes it clear on their facebook page that there is only one legitimate fundraising effort on-going for the family.
Please be aware there are NO other approved or authorized memorial fund or online fundraising accounts that will be established.
Michelle Malkin wants to know why the Democrats are silent, especially California Democrat women! And, it seems to me that the Rs should be talking about Corporal Ronil Singh every day as the wall debate continues. Indeed his death could save thousands in the future if the US finally controls the southern border!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/angel-2665661_640.jpg360640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-01-06 07:47:412019-03-07 06:10:20California: Thousands of Mourners See Police Officer Ronil Singh Laid to Rest
