He did it! President Donald Trump signs Executive Order on Refugees

/in , , , /by

I happened to catch him signing as I came in just before 5 p.m. today.  But, will have to wait for the exact details of the order’s text.

***Update January 28th*** Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart reported late last night about the details of the Executive Order, click here.

We believe it includes a 120-day moratorium, a cap on refugee resettlement for this fiscal year at 50,000 and some kind of inter-agency directive to improve the vetting process (the so-called extreme vetting).  Earlier today we pointed out that 50,000 was not that great a reduction, here.

Now the ball must be placed in Congress’ court!

congress

Every effort must be made in those 120 days to pressure Congress to begin to reform the entire Refugee Admissions Program.

I suspect many members of Congress gave a sigh of relief that Donald Trump was going to take the heat (and oh, there will be heat, more on that later), so they can pretend something is being done and THEY DON’T HAVE TO DO IT.

Trump has taken the monkey off their backs, you must put it right back on!

I’m telling you that if the law is not changed we will be back to square one come the end of May!  The President’s pen and phone can only do so much. The next President can undo it all, if the law is not rewritten.

So Trump should threaten to extend that moratorium unless Congress begins the hard work of reevaluating and ultimately rewriting the Refugee Act of 1980.

And, if there are any brave Senators or Members of Congress willing to take the lead, that legislator should hold field hearings around the country to hear directly from citizens about the impact more immigrant labor is having on local workers, to hear about the economic challenges local and state governments are facing, and to assess the cultural upheaval communities are experiencing.

Do not stop doing whatever you are doing in your pockets of resistance, but make sure everything you do gets to the ears of your member of Congress and US Senators.

See our complete Trump Watch! archive here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

U.S. Cases of refugees arrested or convicted on terror charges, and other heinous crimes

New Study Emphasizes Islamism as Foreign Fighters’ Main Motivation by IPT

Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy

Another way to skin the cat: Starve the UN beast

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

refugees4

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Trump signing the Executive Order on Extreme Vetting at the Pentagon is courtesy of NBC News.

Disinformation Campaign on the Hearing Protection Act Continues [Video]

/in , , , , /by

This month the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) with co-sponsors Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) as S.59. Representatives Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and John Carter (R-TX) – together with 42 co-sponsors – introduced a similar bill in the House as H.R. 367.

The bill would remove suppressors from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which requires buyers to pay a $200 tax and undergo an enhanced background check that can take up to nine months to complete. Suppressors would continue to be regulated like non-NFA firearms, which require a background check when sold by a licensed firearms dealer or across state lines.

Not surprisingly, anti-gun advocates and their media allies are furious that the gun community would dare remove an onerous and unnecessary law that limits their ability to protect against hearing loss while target shooting and hunting.

Washington Post reporter Michael S. Rosenwald announced that “violence prevention advocates are outraged that the industry is trying to ease silencer restrictions by linking the issue to the eardrums of gun owners.” Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times piled on, declaring that the naming of the “Hearing Protection Act” was “so absurdly transparent an effort to deceive that voters may be prompted to ask an obvious question: ‘What are they hiding?’”

Joining the anti-gun tirade, Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center contended that “they want the general public to think it’s about hearing aids or something,” arguing that “when the general public finds out what’s really happening, there will be outrage.” Kristin Brown of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence went so far as to argue “there’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.

Let that sink in.  A representative of the Brady Campaign argues that there is no evidence of hearing loss from gunfire.  One is left to wonder if their zealotry blinds them to the truth or if they really are that ill-informed on firearms and their use.

Other anti-gun advocates argue that “silent” guns make it easier to commit crimes, citing YouTube videos and television shows where silencers reduce a gunshot to a faint cough. Professor Robert J. Spitzer, writing in the Washington Post, even argued that deafening noise “is an important safety feature of any firearm” and that “the lifesaving safety benefits of gun noise should weigh far more in the silencer debate.”

Supporters of so-called “common sense gun safety” are willfully blind to the reality that clear, objective scientific evidence demonstrates that suppressors prevent hearing loss. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and tinnitus are high-priority health issues – and the only type of hearing loss that is completely preventable.

The benefits of suppressors are scientifically proven. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have both determined that even a single noise over 140 decibels causes hearing loss. The peak sound pressure of a gunshot ranges from a low of 144 decibels (.22 caliber rifle) to 172 decibels (.357 caliber revolver). A suppressor reduces the sound by approximately 30 decibels. In consequence, even suppressed firearms are loud – about 120-130 decibels – and louder than a car horn three feet away. It is, therefore, both inconsistent and illogical for the government to recommend – and even legally mandate – noise abatement for loud machines like lawn mowers and chainsaws while simultaneously setting large regulatory hurdles that discourage suppressor use with firearms.

Furthermore, suppressed firearms are not the choice of criminals, and the more than 100-year history of suppressors in both the United States and Europe demonstrates that anti-gun fearmongering is unfounded. A study of the criminal use of suppressors between 1995 and 2005 found only 15 used in crimes – and only two instances of being used in a murder. Indeed, as the number of federally-registered suppressors has nearly quadrupled in the last decade (from 150,364 in 2006 to 902,805 in 2016), the Violence Policy Center can identify only a scant handful of crimes committed with them. As Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman notes, “any useful technology can be put to villainous ends,” and common sense demonstrates that the existing rule on silencers is “a major hassle for the law-abiding” while being “an irrelevance to criminals.”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center are counting on public ignorance and disinformation to derail a legitimate effort to allow gun owners to protect their hearing and the hearing of those around them. Armed with facts and scientific evidence, the National Rifle Association urges its members to contact their lawmakers to support the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.

You can contact your member of Congress via our Write Your Reps tool by clicking HERE or use the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Congress Set to Roll Back Social Security Gun Ban

/in , , /by

Next week, Congress is expected to begin the review and potential repeal of a host of Obama Administration regulations put in place during the last 60 days of Obama’s tenure under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).  Among the regulations specifically targeted for action is the Obama-era Social Security Administration (SSA) gun grab, enacted in the waning days of the anti-gun president’s tenure.

As we reported last month, the rule would for the first time in the nation’s history co-opt the SSA into a gun control apparatus by labeling certain Supplemental Security Income and Disability recipients as “mental defectives” and reporting them to the FBI’s gun ban database. Possession of firearms by these individuals would then become a federal felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The rule, as the SSA itself has admitted, has nothing to do with the individuals’ propensity for violence or self-harm. Rather, the affected persons would be mostly law-abiding individuals singled out because they receive benefits for any of a wide-range of mental disorders (e.g., anxiety, bulimia, obsessive compulsive disorder, etc.) and have a representative payee assigned to help them manage their SSA funds. The Obama White House estimated that some 75,000 people would be reported each year under the new guideline.

While the rule would require reported beneficiaries to be notified of their banned status, it would not give them a chance to defend their suitability to exercise their Second Amendment rights until after they had already been prohibited. At that point, they would be required to file a petition, at their own expense, for “relief from disabilities.” The rule requires petitioners to obtain an expensive and time-consuming mental health evaluation and to disprove risks to the public safety and interest the government never established, or even tried to establish, in the first place.

More than 91,000 comments were submitted on the rule, the overwhelming majority of them in opposition to it. Comments submitted by mental health professionals and advocates for the mentally ill pointed out that the proposal was not supported by evidence or science, added to the stigma of mental illness, and created disincentives for mentally ill persons to seek help and benefits to which they are entitled.

Yet the SSA brushed all these concerns aside in rushing the rule to completion before Barack Obama left office. Confronted with evidence that the rule was illegal, unconstitutional, counter-productive, and would do nothing to further public safety, the SSA simply asserted it was necessary to fulfill a bureaucratic imperative urged on the agency by the Obama Department of Justice.

It’s a shame that the already crowded congressional calendar has to be burdened simply with clearing the minefield Barack Obama intentionally laid to stall and hinder his successor. But it’s encouraging that Congress is taking such swift action to do exactly that.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox praised the move in statements to the press on Wednesday. “Congress’ decision to review the Obama administration’s back-door gun grab is a significant step forward in protecting a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding gun owners,” he said.

You can help by contacting your Congressional representative and urging him or her to vote “yes” on the joint resolution to overturn the SSA’s gun ban rule under the Congressional Review Act. Use the Write Your Federal Lawmakers feature on the NRA-ILA’s website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

True Hatred Exposed

/in , , , , , /by

We regret to inform you of a shocking verbal attack launched against me and the courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, by an Islamic extremist named Linda Sarsour.

Although Sarsour’s disgusting verbal assault took place back in 2011, it has only now been brought to light, given her active and particularly ironic involvement in the supposed women’s rights march, which took place last weekend in Washington, D.C.

WARNING: The language and content of these comments are extremely offensive.

march2.pngThese comments are all the more appalling when one considers that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a victim of Female Genital Mutilation.

Sarsour’s comments, reprehensible as they are, do not surprise anyone who knows the truth about her radical ties.

Ms. Sarsour has been an open advocate for Sharia law, and has connections to terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS.

In fact, Sarsour has three known relatives who have been arrested for terrorist activity!

Sarsour had come under fire for her radical ties before a spotlight was recently shined on her jaw dropping comments about Gabriel and Ali.

march3.pngAs usual, the anti-American fringe defended her, and mainstream media refused to cover the truth behind Sarsour’s extremist connections.

march4.pngHere’s what the anti-American Southern Poverty Law had to say about their darling Sarsour:

“Islamophobes have been attacking #WomensMarch organizer @lsarsour. We stand with her against this type of hate and bigotry. #IMarchWithLinda”

So, what does this story tell you about groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and other anti-American outlets who attack ACT for America as a “hate group?”

It tells you that they are the true haters. They are the bigots who cower under the cloak of political correctness, and seek to enable even the most dangerous radicals.

More to it, this uncovers the nefarious alliance between the far-left and radical Islam, and shows any rational citizen that the SPLC and other anti-American groups are not genuinely interested in human rights.

Rather, they are interested in the destruction of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, and willing to align with anyone who shares their devious vision.

Here are two survivors of Islamic extremism, Brigitte Gabriel, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, fighting for true women’s rights, and this Sharia sympathizing extremist attacks them with the most vile and hateful comments imaginable.

So now the question remains, will the mainstream media cover this abomination, or sweep it under the rug to continue their politically correct narrative about radical Islam?

For those who have Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram, we ask that you show your support for Brigitte and Ayaan, by using the hashtag #IStandWithBrigitteAndAyaan, which was started by Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report and an open-minded ally of true human rights.

Please check our social media pages and share with us why you stand with Brigitte and Ayaan against true hatred and radicalism.

Israel in Dispute

/in , , , , /by

The New York Times is among the most sorely-biased mainstream media outlets for its pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel reportage. The editors and numerous offending writers ignore the watchdogs that continue to cite the Times for its inaccuracies and biases, refusing to be held accountable.

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) and StandWithUs (SWU) are two of numerous groups that have called the paper out for its particularly jaundiced language to describe Israel-Palestinian issues.  Of all the disputed territories worldwide, only Israel’s has consistently been mischaracterized “occupied.” Of all the new home construction, only Israel’s is inaccurately called “settlements.” Islamic terrorism is given legitimacy with the use of “uprisings,” while Israel’s self-defense is publicized as “massacres, with an exaggerated body count that includes human shields designed to amplify Islamic “victim hood.”  By contrast, the horrific massacre of the Fogel family was under-reported and understated.  The reporters weep for the Palestinian children whose parents eagerly sacrifice them for an ideology and largess, but they scorn the Jewish victims.  These egregious deeds of false news, alternative or selected facts, are inexcusable pro-Islamic propaganda.

The NYT prefers the dictatorships that peddle totalitarian ideologies and the destruction of fundamental rights.  The reporters weep for the Palestinian children whose parents eagerly sacrifice them for an ideology and largess, but they scorn the Jewish victims.

Above criticism, the reporters subvert history, morality, and democracy. Their weapon of words is designed to market the Islamic cause and facilitate its ongoing civilizational jihad.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Times, by choosing a topic of assault already implemented by the Islamists, and then developing it into a viable concept, has become a shop window for terrorism, presenting a vendible narrative to educate the masses.

Contrary to all genuine world religions, the ideology of Islam has been territorial since its bloody conquest of Medina in the 7th century, through fourteen centuries and thousands of miles of what we now accept as the Islamic world, including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and parts of India and China.  They sacked the Romans and the Vatican in 846 (returning to Italy with a vengeance) and Christendom’s Constantinople in 1453.  They went as far as Iceland, and plundered America in the 1800s, when they captured citizens and sailors and sold them into slavery in Algiers.   They proceeded into Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Crete, Cyprus, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Russia, Sardinia, Serbia, Sicily, Slovakia, Switzerland, and Ukraine, yet they paint Islam as a genuine religion and themselves as victims in a world of intolerance.

But always the battle is fiercest over Israel.  Where Muslims cannot migrate, flood the land, infiltrate the infidels and impose their rules for Western accommodation, they create a false narrative of previous existence and ownership, such as in Israel, with accusations that Jewish population growth is overtaking “Palestinian land.”  The Jewish population of the West Bank, historically and biblically called Judea and Samaria, has been part of the landscape for centuries.  Despite Arab revisionism and the New York Times’ insistence, the homes are not settlements and the territory is neither “occupied” nor Palestinian.

In 1994, Madeleine Albright, then-Ambassador to the UN, said, “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as ‘occupied Palestinian territory.’ In the view of my government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty; a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories.  The land is “disputed.”  The mischievous and inaccurate term “occupied territories” should never be parroted by a journalist trained to value truth above all.

In 2013, Ambassador to Canada and expert in international law, Alan Baker, penned Ten Basic Points: Israel’s Right to Judea and Samaria.  He explained that the legality of the Judean and Samarian communities, stemming from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, were granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments accepted by the international community – and they remain undeniable and unquestionable.  The Palestinian leadership, in the still valid 1995 Interim Agreement (Oslo 2), agreed to and accepted Israel’s continued presence pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations, without restrictions of planning, zoning, home construction or communities.  Israel’s presence in the area is not illegal. This expert in international law affirmed that the “oft-used term in the UN resolutions ‘occupied Palestinian territories’ has no legal basis or validity whatsoever.”  The Palestinian leadership was to settle all outstanding issues (borders, settlements, security, Jerusalem and refugees) by negotiation only; their calls for preconditions or settlement freezes are in violation of the agreements.

When Israel took control of the area in 1967, as a result of its defensive war against the attacking Arabs, the Kingdom of Jordan did not have prior legal sovereignty and has since officially renounced such rights. When Israel became the administering power, she chose to implement the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Convention to ensure basic day-to-day rights of the local populace as well as to protect her own forces. There are no special laws that apply to Israelis’ choosing to reside in Judea and Samaria; therefore, ‘settlement’ activity does not violate international law. No legal instrument has ever determined that the Palestinians had or have sovereignty over them.  Judea and Samaria remain in dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, subject only to the outcome of permanent status negotiations between the two parties.

These “settlements,” incidentally, are not rag-tag collections of huts, but fully functioning communities with public services such as transport, schools, shops, and libraries.
Any Palestinian attempt to unilaterally change the status of the territory would violate Palestinian commitments set out in the Oslo Accords and prejudice the integrity and continued validity of the various agreements with Israel, thereby opening up possible unilateral action by Israel.

After the election of President Donald Trump, the publisher and executive editor of the Times attempted an unprecedented outreach to their diminishing readership, professing a rededication to honest reporting.  Disappointingly, they followed with a promise for the same fairness, same level of scrutiny, and the same corruption of facts; and they continue to summarily award the land to Palestinians.  Despite the verification, The New York Times recently informed CAMERA that their reporters do not like and will not use the term “disputed.”

Now, the Palestinians are exploring new tactics to delegitimize Israel.  They brought suit in France against two French companies that were building a light rail system in Israel, but their efforts were to seriously backfire.

The bid took place in the 1990s, the rail was completed in 2011, and the system crossed Jerusalem to the east side into “occupied territories.”  Following the completion, the PLO filed a complaint that the tram construction was illegal since the UN, EU and many NGOs and governments consider Israel as illegally occupying Palestinian territories. The lawsuit was built upon a lie and serves as a perfect example of the power of words to falsify reality.

International legislation had to (1) establish whether the light rail construction was legal, (2) seek texts of international law, and (3) examine international treaties, in order to establish the respective rights of Palestinians and Israelis. This was the first time that an independent, non-Israeli court would examine the legal status of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). Although this would not affect international law, it would clarify the legal reality.

The Versailles Court of Appeals considered all arguments on both sides, and concluded that propaganda (such as the PLO’s assessment) is not international law, that humanitarian law (conjured by the Palestinians) was not violated, and that the Palestinians have no rights, in the international legal sense, to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to occupy all the land beyond the ’67 line.  Inasmuch as Israel has real rights to the territories, its decision to build a light rail or anything else in that area is legal, and the judges rejected all arguments presented by the Palestinians.  The Court of Appeals sentenced the PLO (and Association France Palestine Solidarité AFPS (co-appellant) to pay 30,000 euros ($32,000) to each of the two construction companies.

In an historical trial carefully forgotten by the media, the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declared that Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank.  Not surprisingly, the New York Times did not report this story on their respected pages.

RELATED ARTICLES: Trump is right: Settlements don’t impede peace by Jeff Jacoby – The Boston Globe

How many Muslim migrants have entered the U.S. since President Trump’s Inauguration?

/in , , , , , /by

rpcLogoSmall [Converted]

For new readers, here is the Refugee Processing Center (Wrapsnet) website where you find the numbers of refugees entering the U.S.—where they are from and where they are going.

Click here and see the various choices you can make in pulling up data. Try it yourself!

By the way, this was information not available to the general public for many of the early years of RRW.  It was a password protected site.

The problem (and one that caught me yesterday) is that we don’t know exactly when in the course of 24 hours data is being posted, so by going back later in the day on any given day, one can get deceptive results.

So, I’m going back to my previous (safe) methodology of checking numbers at only one time of the day, between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., and capture all the entries for a previous 24 hour period.

This is what I know:

On the morning of President Trump’s inauguration the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. this fiscal year (which began on October 1, 2016), the same fiscal year that Obama had proposed entry numbers of 110,000 *** (the highest since way before 9/11), it was 29,895.

This morning, one week later the number is 32,094.  That means 2,199 refugees arrived in the U.S. since Inauguration Day. That is a daily rate of 314 per day!

Here are the numbers I recorded each day (all between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m.):

January 20th: 29,895
January 21st: 30,063
January 22nd: 30,063
January 23rd: 30,063
January 24th: 30,063
January 25th: 30,885
January 26th: 31,521
January 27th: 32,094

We added 2,199 refugees in the week. It is still a mystery why there were no refugees being recorded on those 4 days. The data began to be updated in the afternoon of the 24th.

If you play around with Wrapsnet, you can find out how many refugees of each nationality were placed in your towns (since 2002).

New readers looking for which resettlement agencies are working in your cities and towns, go here.

***Obama proposed 110,000 for this fiscal year, and as of today we are already at 32,094. If Trump changes the number to 50,000, yes that is a reduction from Obama’s proposal, but it is not that significant when looking back ten years.  Obama had 2 years under 60,000 and Bush had 4 years under 50,000. (See my next post)

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas Officials Warn of ISIS Threat to U.S.-Mexican Border

 

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions ramps up team to ‘continue momentum’

/in , , , , /by

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES) announces three new staff hires, Heather Reams, Andrew Bird, and Kelsey Callahan, to increase its collaboration and work with agencies within the Trump administration, Members and staff of the 115th Congress, and state policymakers throughout America.

“CRES had tremendous success supporting congressional GOP candidates in the November elections and is ramping up the team to continue our momentum in 2017,” said CRES Chairman James Dozier. “The expertise of this talented team of Republican operatives will help solidify our leadership to advance conservative clean energy solutions in Washington and in state capitals across the country. Our team looks forward to working with Republican leaders to deliver opportunities for the American people that are in line with our conservative values. This includes free market clean energy solutions that will advance President Trump’s priorities of creating high paying manufacturing jobs and achieving American energy independence, while also helping to preserve our clean air, water, and climate.”

In 2016, CRES formally endorsed 29 House and Senate Clean Energy Champions – all Republicans – and spent more than $1.7 million in support of candidates with a record of advancing renewable energy solutions both in their campaigns and on Capitol Hill. Nearly 90 percent of CRES’ champions were successful as 25 of them won election or reelection. Since 2014, CRES has invested over $3 million electorally in support of clean energy champions in the House and Senate.

“CRES looks forward to working with Congress and the Trump administration to advance clean energy solutions that embrace commonsense, free market principles to help create jobs, strengthen our economy, and protect our nation’s security and environment,” said Heather Reams, CRES Managing Director.

“In November, voters handed Republicans the opportunity to improve the lives of every American household, allow our economy to flourish, and preserve our nation’s beauty,” said Andrew Bird, CRES Director of Federal Affairs. “CRES is excited to help seize this opportunity and deliver long-term solutions utilizing clean energy that is affordable, reliable, and supplied by diverse natural resources.”

ABOUT CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS (CRES)

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization founded in 2013 to engage Republican policymakers and the public about commonsense, conservative solutions to address our nation’s need for abundant, reliable energy while preserving our environment.

To learn more about the CRES team please visit: http://www.citizensfor.com.

‘Super Cop’ Bo Dietl to run for Mayor of New York City

/in , , , , , /by

FAR HILLS, N.J. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In August 2016, former cop and NY super cop Bo Dietl announced his candidacy for mayor of New York City.  In a recent twist, however, debate has arisen about which party Dietl will be allowed to represent.  While the GOP would love Dietl to run as a Republican, Dietl is seeking to challenge current mayor Bill de Blasio as a Democrat.  Regardless of how the legal wrangling works itself out, New Jersey entrepreneur Tom Maoli announced on December 12, 2016 at the New York Viceroy Hotel Roof that he is fully supporting personal friend Dietl either way.

“With my business ventures now spreading across the bridge to NYC, it’s much more important that we have elected officials who are transparent, honest and not bought and paid for by special interests.  We need to level the playing field for everyone,” says Maoli.  “Bo Dietl’s long and distinguished career proves he cannot not be bought.  And, I can personally vouch for his integrity.  That’s why I am supporting his run for mayor.  I spend lots of time in New York City, and the people of New York City deserve better than Bill de Blasio.”

Richard “Bo” Dietl was a New York City Police Officer and Detective from June 1969 until he retired in 1985. During that time, he was one of the most highly decorated detectives in the history of the police department, with several thousand arrests to his credit.  In 1998, Dietl authored his autobiography, “One Tough Cop.” He founded and is current CEO of Beau Dietl & Associates and Beau Dietl Consulting Services.  Dietl is also a media personality, lending his expertise on matters concerning the law and national security on Fox News and “Imus in the Morning.”

Bietl’s decision to challenge current Mayor DeBlasio stems from the various scandals surrounding the mayor.  The Observer online puts it this way.  “First, it appeared to be politics as usual. We’re referring, of course, to the mayor’s hobbyhorse campaign to ban horse-drawn carriages from New York in exchange for a $1 million contribution from a group called NYCLASS.

“Then there was the sale of the nursing home on the Lower East Side where friends of the mayor managed to get a deed restriction removed. Next came the police corruption scandal with several of the mayor’s contributors receiving significant favors and improperly awarded gun licenses. Then there were campaign finance abuses so startling that the State Board of Elections called them “willful and flagrant.” After that came a garbage bag contract for a political donor. And now federal and Manhattan prosecutors are looking into a sweetheart deal for the development of property held by the Brooklyn Heights library. Every week there seems to be another serious scandal involving Mayor de Blasio or those close to him.”

Maoli’s involvement in politics is not new.  In 2009, he was a member of the Executive Finance Committee for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  In 2015, he was named to Governor Chris Christie’s Presidential Leadership team, and last year he joined then candidate Donald Trump for President’s fundraising team and then served on the Trump transition team.

Tom Maoli will use his prodigious fundraising ability and business network to help Dietl get his message out, regardless of whether Dietl runs against de Blasio in the New York City primary as a Democrat or in a general campaign as a Republican.

Maoli states “I am behind people who do not have an agenda, are honest, loyal and want to make things better and cut out the red tape for business men like me.”

VIDEO: British Prime Minister Theresa May Praises President Trump, defends principles of Western Culture

/in , , , , /by

British Prime Minister Theresa May spoke at the Republican Party retreat in Philadelphia on January 26th, 2017. PM May stated:

“We must never cease”, Churchill said, “to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence”.

So it is my honour and my privilege to stand before you today in this great city of Philadelphia to proclaim them again, to join hands as we pick up that mantle of leadership once more, to renew our Special Relationship and to recommit ourselves to the responsibility of leadership in the modern world.

And it is my honour and privilege to do so at this time, as dawn breaks on a new era of American renewal.  For I speak to you not just as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but as a fellow Conservative who believes in the same principles that underpin the agenda of your Party. The value of liberty. The dignity of work. The principles of nationhood, family, economic prudence, patriotism – and putting power in the hands of the people.

Watch PM May’s full speech courtesy of Bloomberg News:

As PM May noted:

President Trump’s victory – achieved in defiance of all the pundits and the polls – and rooted not in the corridors of Washington, but in the hopes and aspirations of working men and women across this land. Your Party’s victory in both the Congress and the Senate where you swept all before you, secured with great effort, and achieved with an important message of national renewal.

And because of this – because of what you have done together, because of that great victory you have won – America can be stronger, greater, and more confident in the years ahead.

And a newly emboldened, confident America is good for the world.  An America that is strong and prosperous at home is a nation that can lead abroad. But you cannot – and should not – do so alone. You have said that it is time for others to step up. And I agree.

RELATED ARTICLE: U.S. Cases of refugees arrested or convicted on terror charges, and other heinous crimes

President Trump may deport any alien who is a ‘terrorist’ or ‘likely to become a public charge’

/in , , , , , , /by

President Trump recently signed several Executive Orders dealing with immigration and freezing the flow of refugees from certain countries.

The President has the authority to deny entry to or deport any migrant under the provisions of S.358 – Immigration Act of 1990 sponsored by former Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA). The Immigration Act of 1990 states:

Title V: Enforcement – Subtitle A: Criminal Aliens – Revises the definition of aggravated felony to include: (1) any illicit trafficking in any controlled substance; (2) money laundering for which at least five years’ imprisonment has been imposed; (3) any crime of violence (not including a purely political offense) for which at least five years’ imprisonment has been imposed; (4) violations committed outside the United States; and (5) violations of foreign law for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years.

[ … ]

Revises the enforcement authority of INS officers. Authorizes such officers to: (1) make certain warrantless arrests for crimes unrelated to immigration; (2) carry firearms; and (3) execute and serve any order, warrant, summons, or other process issued under Federal authority.

[ … ]

Adds to the list of deportable acts conviction for an attempt to commit a drug offense.

Revises the definition of good moral character to include references to noncommission of an aggravated felony.

Directs the Attorney General to report to the appropriate congressional committees by December 1, 1991, on INS efforts to identify, apprehend, detain, and deport aliens convicted of crimes in the United States. Requires such report to include: (1) a criminal alien census with specified information; and (2) a criminal alien removal plan, including a method for identifying and preventing unlawful reentry.

Limits the waiver of exclusion for returning permanent residents who have been convicted of an aggravated felony and who have served five or more years’ imprisonment.

[ … ]

Extends from ten years to 20 years the bar against reentry of aliens convicted of aggravated felonies.

Prohibits an alien convicted of an aggravated felony from applying for or being granted asylum.

Subtitle D: General Enforcement

Provides for exclusion on security and related grounds of: (1) any alien who will enter the United States to perpetrate espionage, sabotage, or prohibited exporting of goods, technology, or sensitive information, or any other unlawful activity, to oppose, control, or overthrow the U.S. Government by force, violence, or other unlawful means; (2) any alien who has engaged in defined terrorist activities, or is likely to engage in such activities; (3) an alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States (with specified exceptions); (4) an immigrant with membership or affiliation with a totalitarian party (with specified exceptions for involuntary membership, certain past membership, and close family members); and (5) participants in Nazi persecutions or in genocide.

Provides for exclusion of aliens (in terms similar to current law) in the following categories: (1) an alien who is likely to become a public charge; (2) those who do not meet special rules for labor certification of teachers, scientists, and artists or qualifications for foreign medical school graduates; (3) illegal entrants and immigration violators (with revised provisions for aliens previously deported, certain aliens previously removed, aliens seeking benefit from misrepresentation, stowaways, and smugglers of undocumented aliens, as well as aliens subject to specified civil penalties); (4) those who do not meet certain documentation requirements for immigrant or nonimmigrant visas; and (5) those who are ineligible for citizenship. Makes ineligible for citizenship those who are permanently ineligible, and certain draft evaders.

In a 1990 Washington Post article titled “McCarran-Walter Act Reborn?” David Cole wrote:

With a whimper, not a bang, the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act is gone. In one of its last acts, the 101st Congress repealed this embarrassing remnant of the McCarthy era, a law that permitted the exclusion and expulsion of immigrants with politically “incorrect” beliefs and associations. Long criticized, the law appeared especially ludicrous in the wake of the Cold War.

But before we congratulate our representatives for courageously eradicating this 1950s relic, we should ask whether the new law that replaced it is in fact a change for the better. From the perspective of one who has litigated under the McCarran-Walter Act for many years, it looks unfortunately like more of the same. The new law continues to draw ideological lines and may well increase the administration’s ability to exclude and deport aliens for political reasons.

[ … ]

The 1990 law has been heralded as a long-awaited repudiation of these principles. It is not. For example, immigrants can still be excluded for mere membership in the Communist Party. As a result, we will continue to require all immigrants to answer a question long ago repudiated for citizens: “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” The new law also bars representatives and officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the “Communist” party of the 1990s. Thus, guilt by association remains the operative principle.

Two additional grounds for deportation, concerning “terrorism” and “foreign policy,” raise even broader problems. Just as the 1952 Congress responded to the threat of Communism by outlawing a wide range of legitimate but unpopular political activity, so the 1990 Congress has used the threat of “terrorism” to enact similarly sweeping provisions. The new law defines “terrorism” to include, among other things, the use of a firearm or explosive “with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.”

An organization that has engaged in such conduct is a “terrorist” organization. And, according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the law makes deportable anyone who has raised money or recruited members for such an organization.

[Emphasis added]

Read more…

In CNN’s article “Key points in Trump’s immigration executive orders” Tal Kopan and Catherine E. Shoichet report:

The [Executive] order says the priority will be removing deportable immigrants who “have been convicted of any criminal offense; have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved; have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense; have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency; have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.”

Based on the wording of the executive order, a criminal could include someone who’s charged with — but not actually convicted — of a crime.

The last provisions apparently include anyone who an immigration official feels endangers “public safety or national security,” even if that person doesn’t face charges — giving wide latitude to officers.

President Trump has the full authority under the provisions of S.358 – Immigration Act of 1990 to make America safe again. He is exercising that authority to protect every American citizen and every American job.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting – Middle East Quarterly

New Study Emphasizes Islamism as Foreign Fighters’ Main Motivation by IPT

Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy

Washington Post: Halting Refugees From Muslim Countries ‘Triggers Fears Across The Globe’

Mexico’s President Cancels White House Visit After Trump Hits Cartels

HISTORIC! British PM Theresa May Praises Trump; Delivers Speech on Defense of British-US Alliance and Western Culture (VIDEO)

VIDEO: CAIR Florida’s Mubarak and Shibly — What Are You Trying To Hide?

/in , , , , , /by

The Council  on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL), a  self proclaimed civil rights  group,  is discriminating against non-Muslims at one of their advertised “open to the public” events at the Rosen Center Hotel in Orlando, FL.

The CAIR January 28, 2017 event is titled, “Media Training-How to Interact & Engage with the Media.”  The problem is many people who had RSVP’d and were approved  for tickets, later had their ticket registrations denied without cause or reason.

My question to you Ms. Rahaman, Rasha Mubarak, and  Hassan Shibly – What are you trying to hide from the public?

The Council on American Islamic relations should welcome non-Muslims from the community with open arms of friendship and coexistence, not rejection, secrecy, and intimidation.

CAIR leader Hassan Shibly has a pathological disdain for law enforcement so its only natural that his employees exhibit similar behaviors.  Hassan Shibly is so self absorbed he made a selfie video telling all Muslims to ‘Defy’ U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agents in the course  of doing  their jobs to keep us all safe.

Maybe Rasha Mubarak is afraid this video of her at Lake Eola Park in Orlando, FL with her friends who  proudly fly the Hezbollah Flag will get even wider distribution.

This is just one more example of the CAIR organization operating more like the mafia than a civil rights group.  CAIR likes to operate from the shadows and with good reason.  This report is just a small ray of sunshine on how CAIR conducts itself when they think nobody is watching.

Below is the same registration denial letter myself and several  other people around Central  Florida have received.  I have numerous emails advertising the event saying the training class is “open to the public.” Groups like CAIR who say one thing and do  the opposite are forever stained with public shame.

cair media event orlando posterCAIR Ticket Letter of Denial

Shaliya Rahaman <sRahaman@cair.com>

Jan 23 (1 day ago) to me

Mr Kornman,

Thank you for registering for CAIR-Florida’s upcoming media training on January 28, 2017. As the host and provider of this event, CAIR-Florida has the right to approve or deny individual registration requests.

You are hereby notified that your registration request has been denied, therefore, you are not allowed to attend the event.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

CAIR-Florida

Shaliya Rahaman
Community Outreach & Events Coordinator
Council on American-Islamic Relations Florida
8076 N. 56th Street
Tampa, Florida 33617
P: 813.514.1414
sRahaman@cair.com| cairflorida.org

Eliminating the Strongest Magnet Attracting Illegal Aleins to Florida

/in , , , , /by
Representative Joe Gruters R FL Dist 73

Florida Representative Joe Gruters (R-Dist 73)

Several years ago I met Joe Gruters, now just elected State Representative Joe Gruters of District 73, at a Republican Executive Committee meeting. During the course of our conversation he mentioned we shared the same views on opposing illegal immigration.

Just elected to the State House, Joe has wasted no time in going after the strongest magnet attracting illegal aliens and that is jobs. Eliminate the jobs magnet and illegal aliens have no reason to come. He just filed HB 443 which requires all employers to employ legal workers only. Failure to do so and if caught can result in fines and loss of license for extended periods of time.

If passed and enforced it will be the most important tool in removing the magnet attracting illegal aliens. Without jobs, illegal aliens will self deport to other states or back to their home country dramatically reducing Florida taxpayer costs to educate, medicate and incarcerate them and their families. In our school system alone it costs taxpayers $1,600.00 more per year to teach non English speaking students how to speak English.

No one knows the exact number of illegal aliens in the state but estimates range around 900,000 with approximately 600,000 currently illegally employed. The impact of Joe’s legislation can have a significant impact on Florida’s economy over time reducing costs and freeing up jobs for legal workers.

Please contact your state representative and ask them to support HB 443. It will not be easy to get the bill passed with strong democrat opposition expected but the benefits it will bring are well worth the effort.

EDITORS NOTE: Florida House Bill 443 synopsis reads:

HB 443: Verification of Employment Eligibility

GENERAL BILL by Gruters

Verification of Employment Eligibility; Requires employers to use E-Verify system to verify employment eligibility; prohibits employer from knowingly or intentionally employing unauthorized alien; requires DBPR to adopt rules; provides responsibilities & powers of department; provides procedures for filing of complaint; provides criminal penalties; requires department to establish website for specified purposes; provides rebuttable presumption of compliance with this act; provides applicability; provides for severability.

To read the full bill click here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy

The Showdown Over Sanctuary Cities

Comment worth noting: Rohingya are economic migrants, fake refugees, do not admit to U.S.

Trump Watch! Is rumored refugee cap reduction to 50,000 that significant?

Dear Ms. Albright: The U.S. already collects religious identity data — including for Muslims

/in , , , , , /by

Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright is an American politician and diplomat. She is the first woman to have become the United States Secretary of State under former President Bill Clinton. After President Trump signed several Executive Orders dealing with immigration and refugee resettlement Albright tweeted the following:

alright muslim tweet

Dear Ms. Albright, there already is data available on the religious affiliation, a registry if you will, of millions of Americans and immigrants, including Muslims.  Even the U.S. Department of State has a Temporary Religious Worker Visa form. The U.S. State Department is also required to enforce the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 which was meant to exclude certain immigrants from immigrating to America. The McCarran-Walter Act moved away from excluding immigrants based simply upon country of origin. Instead it focused upon denying immigrants who were unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc. and accepting those who were willing and able to assimilate into the U.S. economic, social, and political structures, which restructured how immigration law was handled.

According the U.S. Census Bureau website, the bureau “statistics on the growth, distribution, and characteristics of the U.S. population. The principal source of these data is the U.S. Census Bureau, which conducts a decennial census of population, a monthly population survey, a program of population estimates and projections, and a number of other periodic surveys relating to population characteristics.”

The U.S. Census Bureau collects religious identity as follows:

The methodology of the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008 replicated that used in previous surveys. The three surveys are based on random-digit-dialing telephone surveys of residential households in the continental U.S.A (48 states): 54,461 interviews in 2008, 50,281 in 2001, and 113,723 in 1990. Respondents were asked to describe themselves in terms of religion with an open-ended question. Interviewers did not prompt or offer a suggested list of potential answers. Moreover, the self-description of respondents was not based on whether established religious bodies, institutions, churches, mosques or synagogues considered them to be members. Instead, the surveys sought to determine whether the respondents regarded themselves as adherents of a religious community. Subjective rather than objective standards of religious identification were tapped by the surveys] [Emphasis added]

Here are links to three Census Bureau documents on religious identification in the United States:

xls file   75 – Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population

xls file   76 – Religious Bodies–Selected Data

xls file 77 – Christian Church Adherents and Jewish Population, States

 It is the role of all U.S. government agencies to insure those coming to America are properly vetted, whether they here temporarily or are seeking citizenship. It is important for U.S. government agencies to maintain data on the religious identification of America citizens, temporary visitors and those seeking citizenship. Not to do so impacts many programs and the national security of the United States.

Therefore, Ms. Albright you may contact the U.S. Census Bureau and take their questionnaire for the 2020 Census and declare yourself a Muslim. Your religious identification will be duly recorded and noted.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Walter-McCarran Act)

EDITORS NOTE: The Library of Congress lists countries who have a religious basis for legislation and those whose constitution designates a religious state.

II. Countries Whose Constitutions Indicate a Religious Basis for Legislation

III. Countries Whose Constitutions Simply Indicate a Religion of the State

A picture is worth a thousand words: What happens to women in Islamic countries

/in , , , , /by

“A picture is worth a thousand words” is an English idiom. It refers to the notion that a complex idea can be conveyed with just a single still image or that an image of a subject conveys its meaning or essence more effectively than a description does.

During the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. we noticed the below photograph of American women holding posters of a Muslim woman in a burka made from the American flag. It is meant to depict unity with Muslim woman and to promote wearing of the burka, which is required by Islamic (shariah) law.

womans march hijabs

The poster is one of a series of five created by the Amplifier Foundation under the title “We the People.” The Amplifier Foundation website states:

WE THE PEOPLE CAMPAIGN

We the People is a nonpartisan campaign dedicated to igniting a national dialogue about American identity and values through public art and story sharing

The posters include: “Greater than Fear” (a woman is U.S. flag burka, seen below), “Defend Dignity” (depicting a women with a flower in her hair), “Protect Each Other” (depicting a black woman), “We the Resilient” (depicting a native American woman) and “We The Indivisible” (featuring two lesbian women).

All of those depicted in the Amplifier Foundation posters are at risk under Islamic law. A woman married to Mohammed is a second class citizen, a non-Muslim woman is considered an infidel, black women are being traded in the ISIS slave markets, native American women are also infidels and homosexuals are thrown off of roofs by the soldiers of Allah.

Perhaps the three women at the march have not read the column titled “Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress women” by James Arlandson. Here are a few of the rules in the Quran dealing with women:

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

. . . ‘If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.’ (Bukhari)

I heard the Prophet saying. ‘Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house.’ (Bukhari)

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

Read more..

The Women’s March used gender identity to promote cultural diversity to include women who are the wives or daughters of the followers of Mohammed in America. These women are “married to Mohammed.” What the  Amplifier Foundation does not understand is that Islam has misogynistic world view. A view that seeks to paint women of the entire planet in a misogynistic colors – black and blue.

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

A reader sent us the below series of pictures to illustrate how women in various Middle Eastern countries dressed before and then after the imposition of Islamic laws upon women. Each of these pictures is worth a thousand words:

afghani dresses burkas

Bangladeshi dresses or burkas

iraqi dress burka

malasian dress burka

Clearly, once upon a time, these colorful dresses were created by women for themselves. So what has changed? Answer: Islamic laws have replaced Western values in these and other countries like Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Europe and parts of America.

Women who march without the understanding of what they are marching for is folly at best and dangerous at the worst. In this case, promoting Islamic law upon women is misogynistic and extremely dangerous. “American identity and values” are about women’s rights, freedom, equal justice under the law and religious liberty. All a missing under Islamic law.

The below picture makes our point better than thousands of words…

muslim woman violence

Trump’s Planned Wall is Essential to Protect America and Americans

/in , , , /by

On Inauguration Day (Jan. 20), the day before and the day after, protestors who opposed Donald Trump’s election as the 45th U.S. President and his campaign promises, particularly his promise to build a wall, took to the streets. Among their hand-held signs, some read, “Build bridges, not walls,” a slogan that demonstrates how naive and ill-informed the protesters are.

Also on Jan. 20, the Department of Justice issued a press release that heralded the extradition to the United States of the leader of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel and of arguably the world’s most violent drug dealer.

The press release, “Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman Loera Faces Charges in New York for Leading a Continuing Criminal Enterprise and other Drug-Related Charges,” painted a clear image of the magnitude of the drug trafficking crimes, including crimes of extreme violence for which he has been indicted.

The press release contains links to the Detention Memo and the Indictment, and begins with these two paragraphs:

“The indictment alleges that between January 1989 and December 2014, Guzman Loera led a continuing criminal enterprise responsible for importing into the United States and distributing massive amounts of illegal narcotics and conspiring to murder persons who posed a threat to Guzman Loera’s narcotics enterprise.

“Guzman Loera is also charged with using firearms in relation to his drug trafficking and money laundering relating to the bulk smuggling from the United States to Mexico of more than $14 billion in cash proceeds from narcotics sales throughout the United States and Canada. As part of this investigation, nearly 200,000 kilograms of cocaine linked to the Sinaloa Cartel have been seized. The indictment seeks forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits.”

In order to be successful in their drug trafficking crimes, the Sinaloa Cartel obviously needed to cross the border that is supposed to separate the U.S. from Mexico, not only to move mega-tonnage of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana into the U.S., but also the employees of the cartel that include “enforcers,” thugs who, on orders from their Cartel bosses, kill, kidnap and torture those who get in the way.

These criminals, almost invariably, were aliens who entered the U.S. illegally. It is alleged that in Mexico the Sinaloa Cartel was responsible for the murder of thousands of individuals, many of whom were beheaded to further intimidate those who posed a threat to the cartel.

However the violence was not limited to Mexico.

The press release noted that this investigation was conducted by courageous law enforcement officers in Colombia, Mexico, the U.S. and elsewhere. In the U.S., the investigation was pursued by the multi-agency Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) that includes agents of the DEA, FBI, ICE and ATF, as well as members of local and state police departments.

Having spent the final ten years of my career with the INS assigned to OCDETF, I am extremely familiar with the effectiveness of the multiagency task force approach to the investigation and dismantling of large-scale narcotics trafficking organizations. They are critical to border security and effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

The extradition and prosecution of El Chapo and others are major U.S. law enforcement achievements made in cooperation with the valiant law enforcement officers of Mexico and Colombia. But, the “War on Drugs” continues.

Nevertheless, when Donald Trump campaigned to build a wall to secure the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico to prevent criminals, terrorists and drugs from entering the country, the globalists, aided and abetted by dishonest journalists, created the false narrative equating Trump’s goals and the goals of Americans who demand that our borders be secured against illegal entry with racism.

The provisions of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens guides CBP inspectors at ports of entry in making determinations as to the admissibility of aliens seeking entry into the U.S. These determinations have nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity.

Jimmy Carter created the term “undocumented immigrant” to describe illegal aliens. Over time, that Orwellian tactic has come to enable immigration anarchists to con many Americans into believing that deporting illegal aliens actually refers to deporting all “immigrants” when nothing could be further from the truth.

Securing our borders against illegal entry is not to be equated with preventing all aliens from entering the U.S., only those aliens who violate our laws.

As I noted when I testified at a Congressional hearing several years ago, a country without secure borders can no more stand than can a house without walls.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The president alone can conclude treaties and trade agreements, there is no role for Congress

The secret meaning of Donald Trump’s incredible first 100 hours

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared on the Californians for Population Stabilization website.