Which State Is Most Dependent on Government? by Daniel J. Mitchell

Red State, Blue State, Independent State, Moocher State: I don’t know if Dr. Seuss would appreciate my borrowing from his children’s classic but given how I enjoy comparative rankings, I couldn’t help myself after perusing a new study from WalletHub that ranks states on their independence (or lack thereof).

Ranking the States

Being a policy wonk, what really caught my attention was the section on government dependency, which is based on four criteria.

As you can see, the four factors are not weighted equally. The “federally dependent states” variable is considered four times as important as any of the other variables.

That’s important, to be sure, but is it really more important (or that much more important) than the other categories?

Moreover, I’m not sure the “tax freedom day” variable is a measure of dependency. What’s really captured by this variable, given the way the tax code doesn’t tax low-income people and over-taxes high-income people, is the degree to which states have lots of rich people or poor people. But that’s not a measure of dependence (particularly if the rich people stole money instead of earning it).

But I’m quibbling. I might put together a different formula with some different variables, but WalletHub has done something very interesting.

Most Independent States

And if we look at their 25 least-dependent states, you see a very interesting pattern. Of the 10-most independent states, only three of them are Trump-voting red states (Kansas, Nebraska, and Utah).

The other seven are blue states. And some of them – such as Illinois, New Jersey, and California – are dark blue states. And the #11 and #12 states also were Hillary states as well.

Which raises an interesting question. Why are voters in those states in favor of big government when they don’t disproportionately benefit from handouts?

Are they culturally left-wing, putting social issues above economic issues?

Or are they motivated by some issue involving foreign policy and/or defense?

Or maybe masochistic?

Beats me.

By the way, the WalletHub email announcing the report included a very interesting factoid that may explain why Hillary lost Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania has the lowest percentage of government workers (local, state and federal), at 10.8 percent. Alaska has the nation’s highest percentage, at 25.1 percent.

Though I can’t see those details in the actual report, which is disappointing. I’d like to see a ranking of the states based solely on the number-of-bureaucrats criteria (we have data comparing countries, for those interested).

Now let’s shift to the states that have the highest levels of dependency.

Least Independent States

If you look at the bottom of the final image, you’ll notice that it’s a reverse of the top-10. Seven of the most-dependent states are red states that voted for Trump.

Only New Mexico, Oregon, and Maine supported Hillary (and Trump actually won one-fourth of Maine’s electoral votes).

So this raises a separate question. Are red state people voting against their interests? Should they be voting for politicians who will further expand the size and scope of government so they can get even more goodies from Uncle Sam?

For what it’s worth, a leftist actually wrote a book entitled What’s the Matter with Kansas, which examined why the people of the Sunflower State weren’t voting for statism.

Well, part of the answer may be that Kansas is one of the most independent states, so perhaps the author should have picked another example.

But even if he had selected Mississippi (#49), I suspect the answer is that low-income people don’t necessarily think that it’s morally right to steal money from other states, even if the loot is laundered through Washington.

In other words, people in those states still have social capital or cultural capital.

Demographics and Redistribution

It’s also possible, of course, that voters in red states with lots of dependency (at least as measured by WalletHub) are instead motivated by cultural issues or foreign policy issues.

There’s even a very interesting study from Professor Alesina at Harvard, which finds that ethnically diverse jurisdictions can be more hostile to redistribution (and homogeneous societies like the Nordic nations are more supportive of a large welfare state).

And since many of the red states at the bottom of the rankings also happen to be states with large minority populations, perhaps that’s a partial explanation.

Though California has a very large minority population as well, yet it routinely votes for more redistribution.

The bottom line is that we probably can’t draw any sweeping conclusions from this data.

Though it leaves me even more convinced that the best approach is to eliminate all DC-based redistribution and let states decide how much to tax and how much to spend. In other words, federalism.

P.S. I put together my own ranking of state dependency, based on a formula involving welfare usage and poverty. Vermont was the worst state and Nevada was the best state.

P.P.S. I also shared calculations based solely on the share of eligible people who signed up for food stamps. Interestingly, Californians rank as the most self-reliant. Maybe my predictions of long-run doom for that state are a bit exaggerated.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

Recipe for Disaster: Immigration Without Assimilation

Many countries in the West are seeking to accommodate radical Islamism following the flow of Middle Eastern immigrants to Europe and the North America in the name of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.

This sentiment is expressed, for example, in events such as Hijab Solidarity Day , celebrated widely in the West, attempts to enshrine Islamic (sharia) law into the British legal system and passing what almost amounts to a blasphemy law in Canada (Motion M-103).

This trend in the West is problematic. Under Islamic law, in some countries, thieves face the punishment of having their hand and leg severed; females who commit “adultery” face death by stoning, beheading or hanging. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.

Are these cultural values morally equivalent to Western values? In Islamic countries ruled by sharia law, limits are placed on equality of women, such as prohibitions against driving, employment and education.

Is female genital mutilation, which is practiced by many Muslim-majority countries — a morally equivalent value? We will soon see when the FGM case in Michigan goes to trial. Lawyers in the case have said that the doctor accused of cutting girls will claim freedom of religion as her defense.

In Iran, the country from which I escaped, women have resisted over the past 39 years this barbaric legal framework that is incompatible with modern values and basic human rights. Yet, some of these very same sharia laws are slowly being incorporated in the West in the name of multiculturalism.

Iranian women have suffered much due to sharia law: 16 year-old Atefeh Sahaaleh was hanged for having had sexual relations with a 50 year-old married taxi-driver. (The cheating husband was supposed to be executed by the reprehensible act of stoning according to Iranian law; however, he was not punished.)

Iranian women are forced to veil themselves in public and can be picked up by the brutal morality police for violating this rule. However, the West, instead of fighting against sharia encroachment and standing in solidarity with the victims of Islamist oppression, is actually celebrating this misogyny.

Proponents of the multiculturalist doctrine didn’t count on radical Islam taking hold in second generation immigrants.

In Canada, where I live, these kids not only don’t want to be Westernized (although they like to enjoy the benefits of the Western world). They oftentimes do not even identify as Canadians. Rather, they identifying as Muslims and are loyal to the country from which their parents came.

Most people think “diversity” when they think about Canada, yet there is no women’s organization here that will take a hardline stand against sharia. They’re not used to it. They are all so used to bending over backwards for minority groups.

The Western world has a moral obligation to stand up for the voiceless women – and men — whose human rights are systematically taken away from them by repressive regimes run by sharia law, not by adopting or condoning aspects of sharia in the name of multiculturalism.

The Western world must integrate Muslim immigrants rather than bending Western culture to fit the Islamist worldview. In Europe alone, immigration without an emphasis on integration and assimilation is birthing disaster. Crime is skyrocketing like never before. The incidents of rape, murder, theft and bullying are increasing daily.

People are speaking out, but are being gagged for the agenda of a few. This is not moral in any way. This careless trend of elite political decision-making apart from the people, history tells us, is very dangerous and must be stopped.

The exercise of our individual consciences and the safety of our citizens must once again be preserved. We, the people, must hold our authorities accountable.

The U.S. should work to pull Russia out of the Iranian axis

The Russian-Iranian alliance poses a strategic threat to American interests in the Middle East. It is in the best interests of the US to pull Russia away from Iran.

As we speak, the Russian-Iranian alliance alongside Russia’s overtures to Erdogan’s regime poses a major threat to US interests in the Middle East. In recent times, Turkey has threatened US forces in Syria. In addition, Turkey has targeted Kurds allied with the US in Syria and voices within Turkey have demanded the eviction of US forces from the Incirlik Air Force base. Some analysts argue that Turkey has most likely taken these moves only in response to Russian influence.

In addition, Russia propping up Iran has made the threats that the US faces emanating from the Middle East far more lethal for instead of merely facing a radical regional power, the US is dealing with a radical regime backed up by a superpower. A perfect example of this is Russia’s sale of the S-300 missile system to Iran. Also, Iran used their influence in Syria in order to get the Syrian Air Force to attack Kurdish forces that are aligned with the US in order to send the message that the Kurds cannot leave the Iranian sphere of influence. More important than that, Iran tried to drive a wedge between America and Russia in Syria, which is their ultimate goal. Given this, the US should work in order to pull Russia out of the Iranian axis for this poses a strategic threat to American interests.

However, how can America go about pulling Russia out of the Iranian sphere of influence? In order to come up with a concrete policy plan for this, one needs to understand Russia’s intentions. Russia is not supporting Erdogan and Iran due to a love of radical Islam. The Russians themselves are facing threats from radical Islamist groups in Chechnya, who have blown up Russian railway stations and taken hostages inside Russian theaters. The Russians know deep down inside their souls that both Iran and the Islamist regime in Turkey can one day form an alliance with these Chechen groups.

Nevertheless, on the other end of the coin, the Russians feel very much threatened by the expansion of NATO and NATO’s deployment of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. They also feel very much that their role as a super power is not respected in the West. A good illustration of this is Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric during the US electoral campaign. Also, the fact that the US under Obama placed sanctions upon Russia did not help the US to win support in the Kremlin. As a response to these grievances, the Russians feel that they need to preserve their status by creating problems for the United States via Iran and Turkey in the Middle East. And they believe that they have the power to do it.

As Syrian Kurdish dissident Sherkoh Abbas explained, “Things changed after the prices of oil went up within the past 10 years. When the prices of oil went up, they had abundant money and were able to build up their weapons system. When the prices of oil went down again and they faced increased Western pressure over the expansion of NATO as well as the sanctions on them due to their involvement in the Ukraine, they reached out to Iran/Assad/the radical groups to create problems for the US. They had to show them that they were strong in order to prevent another Baltic state from joining NATO.”

So how can the West solve the issue? On the one hand, Russia cannot see the United States as weak. The United States has to take a proactive position and cannot retreat like Obama did with his Red Line Policy in Syria. But on the other hand, the US has to be sensitive to Russian sentiment and not to demonize them. The best way that the US can be proactive in finding a solution to this issue is by finding a solution to the Syrian crisis. This will make it easier for the US to resolve their differences with Russia on other issues of importance.

Right now, the US is so boggled down with the Syrian refugee crisis, Assad’s brutal bombings and ISIS terrorism to deal with any other issue. But if the Syrian crisis can be solved, then Iran will lose one of the main issues that they are using in order to obtain Russian support for the Ayatollah’s regime. Starting with Syria, this will be a road-map for solving all of the issues and grievances between Russia and the US. It can be a first step towards creating goodwill on both sides.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Times of Israel.

U.S. State Department leaking like sieve to CNN

Leaks reveal White House thinking of moving refugee program to the Department of Homeland Security.

I know, I know, it is a CNN story with Jake Tapper on the byline, but there is very likely truth to it.

Anne Richard

I’m not weighing in on the merits (or demerits) of such a move, my purpose here is to once again show you that the Obama shadow government, in this case Anne Richard, FORMER Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration has a pipeline in to the career bureaucrats running the refugee program in the Department of State and she is carrying their news to the likes of CNN.

The primary reason that the Deep State would not support the move of the program to the Dept. of Homeland Security is that they (in State) have a decades-long cushy relationship with the refugee contractors that I keep yelling about (here and here just this morning).

They are all on the same page—more, more, more refugees for America!

First, get the contractors (yelling and propagandizing) out of the system completely and reform of the program could be accomplished. (This depends on the lazy lunks in Congress!)

And, second!

Trump must get his loyalists placed in positions above the bureaucrats to get this under control.

Career people can’t be fired unless, and until, they are caught in insubordination to a boss. Right now Trump is at fault for not picking their bosses!

Here is CNN quoting Anne Richard extensively so she must be the one carrying the tales….

Washington (CNN)The White House is considering a proposal to move both the State Department bureau of Consular Affairs and its bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration to the Department of Homeland Security, a senior White House official tells CNN.

The move, which the White House official cautioned was far from becoming official policy, would likely be controversial among diplomats and experts in State Department matters.

[….]

“It would be a huge mistake,” said Anne Richard, who led the bureau of Population Refugees, and Migration during President Barack Obama’s second term.

[….]

The proposals were written in a memo submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget from the White House Domestic Policy Council as part of President Trump’s March executive order pushing for ideas for Government Reorganization.

A State Department spokesperson referred CNN to the White House for comment.

The extremely complicated admissions process now starts with the UNITED NATIONS making the first cut as we have reported ad nauseam.

The White House did not explain the reasoning behind the recommendations, but perhaps the idea is rooted in a desire to streamline the refugee vetting process. As it stands currently, the United Nations High Commission of Refugees refers applicants to the State Department for vetting. This vetting is carried out by nine International Resettlement Support Centers (RSC) with American interests***; all of which are managed by the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. Approved applicants are then sent to the Department of Homeland Security for final vetting. After final vetting at DHS, the State Department then resumes supervision of the process with its Reception and Placement Program.

[….]

Richard, the former Obama State Department official, pinned the proposal on an “imperfect understanding” of the bureau’s function. It’s not mainly a law enforcement body, Richard said, rather, it works with nongovernmental organizations and the UN to assist refugees around the world. [And that is the problem—the NGOs and the UN—ed]

More here.

*** Are there other interests operating Resettlement Support Centers???  See here.

Nine Department of State-funded Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs) not to be confused with the nine major refugee contractors (except that there is some overlap because some contractors work at these RSCs). Look at these locations. Can you say opportunity for fraud!

  • Amman, Jordan with sub-offices in Baghdad, Iraq and Cairo, Egypt;
  • Bangkok, Thailand with a sub-office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia;
  • Damak, Nepal;
  • Havana, Cuba;
  • Istanbul, Turkey with a sub-office in Beirut, Lebanon;
  • Moscow, Russia with a sub-office in Kyiv, Ukraine;
  • Nairobi, Kenya with a sub-office in Johannesburg, South Africa;
  • Vienna, Austria; and
  • Quito, Ecuador with small sub-offices in San Salvador, El Salvador and Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

The nine federal resettlement contractors who are fighting tooth and nail to let nothing rock their cushy relationship with the DOS:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Episcopal Bishop in Maine: It is our moral obligation to take in refugees

IRC sucks down over $115 MILLION tax dollars since Trump arrives in Washington

What is Fake News?

What is fake news? Is Donald Trump correct when he says CNN, The New York Times, and other mainstream outlets report fake news? Commentator and bestselling author Andrew Klavan explains.

TRANSCRIPT

You’ve probably heard a lot of people recently screaming and yelling about Fake News. Charges fly from all points on the political spectrum: this story is mistaken — it’s Fake News; that statement is incorrect — it’s Fake News.

But to my mind, these arguments miss the point. Mainstream American news is ALL fake because the major news outlets are so consistently biased toward the left that whether any given story they report is factual or not, their overall reportage is essentially leftist propaganda.

You can complain about the right-wing slant of Fox News all you want, but left-wing ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN have, combined, almost ten times the viewers.

Look, the chief journalist at ABC is former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos; the president of CBS News is David Rhodes, the brother of a former senior Obama staffer. Comcast, which owns NBC, is run by a major Democrat donor. Same for the leadership at CBS and Time Warner, which owns CNN.

Only seven percent of American journalists identify as Republican. And while a lot of news outlets forbid their reporters to donate to candidates, 96 percent of those who did donate last time out gave to Hillary Clinton.

These journalists claim that despite the fact they’re all Democrats, they can be objective. It just ain’t so. Psychologists have shown that when people associate almost exclusively with those who agree with them, they suffer from groupthink and confirmation bias and lose their ability to see events clearly.

Now, it’s not that these journalists are liars, exactly – it’s that their bias skews their reporting in very specific ways. Let me give you Andrew Klavan’s Three Rules of Mainstream Media Journalism. These can transform any story, whether it’s true or not, into Fake News.

Rule Number One:

Whenever left-wing prejudices are confirmed by a single event, that event is treated as representative. But whenever left-wing prejudices are contradicted by a single event, that event is treated as an isolated incident – and if you treat it as representative, you are deemed to be hateful.

So, for instance, a white cop shoots a black suspect. The mainstream media treats that story as representative of general police racism even though studies show cops don’t use deadly force more often on blacks than on whites.

On the other hand, if a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, and someone is bold enough to point out that the terrorist act is, in fact, representative of the daily acts of Muslim terror around the world, this is considered Islamophobic.

The leftist media cherry-picks when an event illustrates a larger narrative. That’s Fake News.

Rule Number Two:

When a scandal breaks on the right, the news is the scandal. When a scandal breaks on the left, the news is: who wrongfully disclosed that scandalous information?

Thus, when the media wanted to raise suspicions that Donald Trump was somehow in league with the Russians, they freely quoted illegally leaked information from intelligence sources.

But when Congressman Devin Nunes announced he had information that the Obama administration might have misused intelligence against Donald Trump’s transition team, the story became: How did Nunes get that information? And did he do it legally?

The scandal meter is heavily weighted to fall to the right. Fake News.

Rule Number Three:

Individual extremists on the right are highlighted, but the overall extremism of the left is ignored.

In one of the fakest Fake News stories in recent history, the mainstream media rose up as one to tar conservative Tea Party members as racist, when all they really wanted were lower taxes and less government spending. Reporters gave the Tea Party disparaging nicknames; represented their almost universally peaceful gatherings as “ugly” and “violent”; and whenever an individual Tea Partier said something wrong, it was cited as evidence that the movement itself was tainted.

Meanwhile, the continually violent, vandalizing, anti-Semitic socialist movement that went by the name of Occupy Wall Street was hailed by journalists as an important social development right up to the moment it vanished without a trace (except for the piles of litter its protesters left behind).

Peaceful Tea Partiers wanted the small government prescribed by the Constitution, so they were radicals; violent Occupiers wanted the widespread government intrusion of socialism, so they were heroes. Very Fake News.

Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas was once criticized when his magazine essentially convicted some white Duke University lacrosse players of raping a black woman — a rape, it turns out, they did not commit – because it didn’t happen. Thomas defended himself, saying, “The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.”

The mainstream media almost always get their left-wing narrative right, whether the facts support it or not. That’s called confirming your own prejudices. It’s called bias. It’s called Fake News.

I’m Andrew Klavan for Prager University.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may donate today to PragerU! by going here: http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h

5 Reasons Cities Should Not Adopt Climate Accords

Another stop on the Hate Trump Hissy-Fit Express is the decision by a couple hundred cities and some states to vote to bind themselves to the Paris climate accords.

This is a bad idea on multiple fronts. We’ve already explained why Trump was absolutely correct to pull the United States out of the environmentally worthless but constitutionally alarming agreement.

But there are plenty of reasons aside from the general awfulness of the Paris accords for these cities and states to not take this step.

  1. It’s a violation at least of the spirit of the U.S. Constitution — the contract binding the states together in a union. Constitutional scholar KrisAnne Hall recently wrote a piece explaining how states and cities cannot make contracts with foreign governments without breaking the contract of the Constitution between states — the Constitution that created the United States. While these laws and ordinances may not be a technical violation of the Constitution — they are voluntary — but they are passably close. They do bind the city or state to them as long as the political entity chooses to remain a part of them. Like any agreement between democratic nations, they can be annulled with a vote of the nation’s representatives.
  2. Another thorny constitutional issue: Which laws will these cities and states see as supreme? What will the cities and states do if the rules guiding the accords conflict with federal law in some way? Or state law or city code, for that matter? Do the Paris accords take precedence, or federal law? Considering what we’ve seen in the flagrant disregard for constitutionally authorized federal law through the sanctuary city actions, the answer does not seem as obvious and hopeful as it should. Obviously, if the Paris accords are supreme — that is, if states and cities decide to violate federal law in order to adhere to their decision to bind themselves to the Paris agreement — then we do have a full-fledged breaking of the contract binding the states together. Unlike so much of the hyperbole surrounding every Trump tweet, this is an actual, true threat to the Union.
  3. What is the cost of abiding by the Paris accords? Most cities are facing current and growing financial challenges stemming from overly generous benefits, unfunded pensions, ignored infrastructure and the future diminishment of the tax base through ongoing technological disruption. The Paris accords are costly. Even in the rosiest scenarios, the costs are steep upfront but supposedly made up over time through energy savings. Whether those savings will ever materialize or not is another question — our money is on “not,” based on virtually every historic promise of government. But since the sensationalized verbiage says that the planet is doomed if we don’t make these changes, then the costs are almost irrelevant. But if the doomsday predictions are off on climate change — and they have been so far —  and the savings do not come through, then these cities and states are setting themselves up for major financial and services problems.
  4. Let’s just clearly reiterate that all of this constitutional and financial risk is being promoted for an agreement that, by its own estimates, was not going to accomplish much in retarding the “global warming” threat. The risk-reward of the agreement itself, holding true even further for the cities and states binding themselves to it, was just never a wise endeavor — even if you accept that climate change is now anthropogenically driven and not part of a broader planetary cycle.
  5. This leads us to the final point. This looks a lot like leftist cause enthusiasm married to an opportunity to poke Trump in the eye. In that respect, this is perfect for 2017 American Democrats. Not coincidentally, all the cities and states taking these positions are Democrat dominated.

This gives every appearance of being pure pettiness, now a staple of the Left in this country. These are adopted with regular, heavily politicized anti-Trump shots. We can be quite sure that if President Obama had said he didn’t think the cost-benefit ratio of this is good for America, none of these cities would have passed their own laws to follow it.

Given all this, it just seems to be more of the ongoing strategy to diminish and undermine the duly elected President of the United States at every possible opportunity — at the risk of the union of the United States and the financial security of the cities and states involved. It’s tempting to say the citizens of these cities and states deserve better, but a majority of them elected those leaders.

So to the electorate: Caveat emptor!

RELATED ARTICLE: Global Warming: The Imminent Crisis That Never Arrives – Investor’s Business Daily

VIDEO: Cartels, Gangs and International Terrorist Groups vs. America

In a July 2012 column titled Drug Cartels Invade Florida: Narco-Terrorists to Follow I warned about the growing threat of drug cartels in Florida stating:

“The Mexican drug trade has left more than 50,000 bodies in its wake since 2006, and the cartels appear to be looking to expand their networks. With this in mind, the National Post’s graphics team takes a look at the flow of drugs across the continent,” Jonathon Rivait and Richard Johnson from the National Post report. Their analysis shows at least 1,000 U.S. cities reported the presence of at least one of four Mexican cartels in 2010. Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville and Orlando are among those cities. Tampa, Miami and Orlando reported the presence of multiple drug cartels with six reports of the Gulf Cartel or C.D.G. in Florida.

According to a February 2012 NARCONON NEWS article, “The discoveries of large drug shipments on submarines and fast boats in the Caribbean support the conclusion that South and Central American drug cartels are once again pointing their drug trafficking efforts at Florida.”

“Recent events have spurred concerns that Florida may once again become the target of Central or South American drug trafficking groups. Heightened drug trafficking activity in the Caribbean Sea and in the Dominican Republic point at the possibility that drug cartels are reclaiming their old trafficking channels and bringing their customary violence with them,” notes NARCONON NEWS.

Hezbollah terrorists working with Mexican drug cartels is the subject of this 2014 research paper by Daniel Valencia titled, “The Evolving Dynamics of Terrorism: The Terrorist-Criminal Nexus of Hezbollah and The Los Zetas Drug Cartel.”

Fast forward to 2017 and President Trump’s war against drug cartel gangs and narco-terrorists like MS – 13.

A new edition of The Glazov Gang features Jaeson Jones, a border security expert. Jaeson came on the show to discuss Cartels, Gangs and International Terrorist Groups vs. America, shining disturbing light on a dire threat we face, one that we raised in 2012.

Brad Johnson, a retired CIA Station Chief, focus on The “Lone-Wolf” Myth, where he unveils the inside story of how the Left is sabotaging our struggle with Jihad:

The map below was produced by the National Post and shows the infiltration routes and locations of drug cartels across the United States and Mexico:

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE MAP

Narcoterrorism is on the rise in America. This is another front on the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT).

RELATED ARTICLE: Suspect in teen murder near Va. mosque was allegedly in MS-13, attacked woman week before

VIDEO: Geert Wilders vs. Dutch Prime Minister Rutte on Islam

An illuminating discussion, as the truth meets cherished Leftist assumptions.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK imam accused of recruiting jihadis to fight for the Islamic State

North Carolina jihadi has “psychological problems that could spiral into full-fledged schizophrenia”

Iraqi refugees plead guilty to lying on refugee application

She failed to disclose a family relationship to an Iraqi terrorist. Ho hum! There was no American fatally affected.

I’m joking because in a story I read within the last day, but can’t remember where, a pro-more-refugees advocate qualified his comment about no refugees committing terror attacks to say—no US refugee committed a fatal terror attack on U.S. soil.  That isn’t true, and, the main reason there aren’t more is that the cases have been foiled!

This is the story we reported in March.

(Dear Supreme Court, family members lie!)

We learn that the Iraqi female liar will admit guilt today.

From AP at the Lincoln Journal Star (hat tip: Joanne). BTW, I searched and searched for any photos of the perpetrators, but found none.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A Virginia woman living in the U.S. as an Iraqi refugee for the last decade is scheduled to plead guilty Wednesday to federal charges after being charged with hiding her ties to the kidnapper of a U.S. contractor. [Translation—she lied on her refugee application and in her screening interviews!—ed]

Enas (eh-NAHS’) Ibrahim of Vienna was charged in March on allegations of visa fraud.

Prosecutors say Ibrahim, her husband and her husband’s brother all came to the U.S. and settled in the suburbs of the nation’s capital after receiving refugee status.

But prosecutors say the two men are brothers of Majid Al Mashhandani, who admitted participating in the 2004 kidnapping of U.S. contractor Roy Hallums.

Fraud, fraud and more fraud!

In addition to leaving out any reference to the Islamic terrorist brother because people told them in Iraq (who told them, a refugee contractor!) that they would be rejected from the refugee program if they revealed the terrorist brother, they FABRICATED PERSECUTION STORIES FOR THEMSELVES.

See the DOJ press release from March with all of the details of their lies.

How many more Iraqis lied to get in as refugees and to gain citizenship?

Checking Wrapsnet just now, I see that since the U.S. opened the floodgates for Iraqis we have admitted 140,576 with no end in sight!

Virginia is number seven in the top ten receiving states with 4,536.

Alaska got 49 and Hawaii got a whopping four!

EDITORS UPDATE: The Daily Caller reported:

Three Iraqi refugees were arrested Tuesday after illegally applying for citizenship, the Department of Justice announced.

Two of the refugees, Yousif Al Mashhandani, 35, of Vienna, Va., and Adil Hasan, 38, of Burke, Va., are biological brothers. Hasan’s wife Enas Ibrahim,32, was also arrested. The three refugees allegedly committed immigration fraud as they omitted the name of a terrorist relative on their refugee applications.

Yousif and Adil’s brother, Majid Al Mashhadani, was detained after he held an American citizen and other hostages for months in an underground bunker. When Yousif applied for citizenship in 2013, an FBI fingerprint analysis found a match on a document found at the underground bunker.

The applications the refugees filled out required them to detail family trees, and they all admitted to the FBI agents that they thought not including Majid would help them enter the U.S. The FBI also found that both Yousif and Adil had made up a kidnapping story involving a Shiite militia in order to claim persecution and admittance as refugees.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Terror-Connected Refugees Arrested After Illegally Applying For Citizenship

And so it begins—the battle of the bona fides

VIDEO: The second shoe drops on CNN…

Yesterday, Project Veritas released the first video in our “American Pravda” series—catching a CNN producer bragging about how they’re spreading fake news for the sake of ratings.

Today, Project Veritas launched our second video—which shows liberal pundit (and former Obama aide) Van Jones admitting that the whole scandal is a “nothing burger,” despite the hours of time he and other CNN pundits have spent pushing the story.

Watch now:

As I said in my email earlier this morning, the response to the first video has been seismic.

President Trump tweeted about it twice, and his White House Deputy Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said she would encourage “everybody across the country to take a look at it.”

By the afternoon, Project Veritas had made headlines in almost every major publication—everything from the Washington Post to Drudge Report.

Our team expects a similar response to today’s video. But, because of your support for Project Veritas, we wanted you to be among the first to see it—before anyone else.

Watch the latest chapter in this investigation now.

EDITORS NOTE: Both videos exposing CNN need to reach the American people—and we’re counting on you to help make that happen. Will you help Project Veritas spread the word about this investigation—right now? Please make your most generous, tax-deductible contribution to Project Veritas right away.

It’s Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying!

As Republicans in the U.S. Congress are debating the pluses and minuses of their repeal and replacement legislation for Obamacare, the Democrats are accusing their colleagues of  wanting “thousands of people to die.”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

It was The Agenda Project Action Fund that in 2011 released the video of a “Republican” pushing an old woman in a wheel chair off of a cliff. The Agenda Project Action Fund in 2016 endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders for President of the United States. The “thousands of people to die” rhetoric has been repeated on major news channels most recently by Senator Sanders and other Democrats, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

The scheme is to paint Republicans as murderers. It’s the “big lie.”

Master propagandist of the Nazi regime and dictator of its cultural life for twelve years, Joseph Goebbels wrote,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Watch the below video to understand how a variety of Democrats, and media pundits, are repeating the “big lie” that “thousands will die”:

TRUTH: It’s Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying.

Here are a few examples of policies and legislation supported by Democrats that are causing people to die:

In an LA Times article titled “111 terminally ill patients took their own lives in first 6 months of California right-to-die law”, Soumya Karlamangla reports:

A total of 111 people in California took their own lives using lethal prescriptions during the first six months of a law that allows terminally ill people to request life-ending drugs from their doctors, according to data released Tuesday.

A snapshot of the patients who took advantage of the law mirrors what’s been seen in Oregon, which was the first state to legalize the practice nearly two decades ago. Though California is far more diverse than Oregon, the majority of those who have died under aid-in-dying laws in both states were white, college-educated cancer patients older than 60.

The End of Life Option Act made California the fifth state in the nation to allow patients with less than six months to live to request end-of-life drugs from their doctors.

Five states and Washington, D.C., have “Death with Dignity” statutes:

  • California (End of Life Option Act; 2016)
  • Colorado (End of Life Options Act; 2016)
  • District of Columbia (Death with Dignity Act; 2017)
  • Oregon (Oregon Death with Dignity Act; 1994/1997)
  • Vermont (Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act; 2013)
  • Washington (Washington Death with Dignity Act; 2008)

These five states and the District of Columbia are controlled by Democrats.

Illinois is in a fiscal meltdown, the state is bankrupt. In 2016 the Illinois Obamacare co-op became 16th to collapse. Americans for Tax Reform reported:

Sixteen Obamacare co-ops have now failed. Illinois announced that Land of Lincoln Health, a taxpayer funded Obamacare co-op, would close its doors, leaving 49,000 without insurance. The co-op now joins a list of 15 other Obamacare co-ops that have collapsed since Obamacare has been implemented.  Failed co-ops have now cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion in funds that may never be recovered.

Co-ops were hyped as not-for-profit alternatives to traditional insurance companies created under Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financed co-ops with startup and solvency loans, totaling more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars. They have failed to become sustainable with many collapsing amid the failure of Obamacare exchanges.

Since September, 13 Obamacare co-ops have collapsed, with only seven of the original 23 co-ops remaining.  Illinois’ Land of Lincoln co-op faced losses of $90 million last year and is suing the federal government for the deficit caused by Obamacare.  Co-ops across the country have struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges, losing millions despite receiving enormous government subsidies.

Tens of thousands of people in the Land of Lincoln are without healthcare. Illinois is ruled by Democrats.

In an article titled “Break the Baby’s Neck if Born Alive” Debra Braun reports:

St. Paul, MN, June 27, 2017 – Planned Parenthood abortionists in St. Paul, Minn. would “break the baby’s neck” if the child was born alive, according to a new video just released by Pro-Life Action Ministries. This would be a violation of both federal and Minnesota law.

Braun notes:

In the video, a former Planned Parenthood client says that when she went to Planned Parenthood earlier this year for a late-term abortion (at 22 weeks, 1 day), she asked the two abortionists, “If you guys were to take him out right now while he’s still, his heart rate is still, you know, going, what would you guys do?” According to the woman, one of the abortionists looked at the other one, then looked back at the client, “and she told me that we don’t tell women this, and a lot of women don’t even ask this question, but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby’s neck.”

Read more.

Democrats fully support Planned Parenthood aborting the unborn, and now killing the born.

So who supports a culture of death? Who wants thousands of people to die? You be the judge.

RELATED ARTICLES:

As a Teen Cashier Seeing Food Stamp Use, I Changed My Mind About the Democrat Party

15 Times Celebrities Envisioned Violence Against Trump and the GOP

The Transgender Agenda vs. the Science

DC Residents Now Can Drive Under ‘X’ as Gender Identity

Doctor: Insurance Wouldn’t Pay for Patients’ Treatments, but Offered Assisted Suicide

Pro-Life Group Claims Twitter Has ‘Suppressed’ Its Message

Here’s why the feds are investigating Bernie Sanders’ wife Jane – Washington Examiner

Louisiana Democrats Purge Thomas Jefferson, the Man Who Acquired Louisiana

Free Speech in The West on Life Support

America and Europe are under full frontal assault, but it’s a silent war; attacking every vestige of Free Speech.  MSM news outlets have been eerily silent; because they’re supplying the ammunition through their promotion of political correctness.

Americans have, for too long, taken their liberties and the right of freedom of speech for granted.  The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights was created by our founding Fathers for the purpose of equipping its populace with all of the freedoms that had been deprived of themselves; that they fought and died for.

Our European counterparts, unfortunately were never granted the same rights and opportunities as delineated in our Bill of Rights, therefore attacks on freedom of speech under the guise of ‘hate speech’ have reached a tipping point.

Recently, German police raided 36 homes over ‘hateful’ Face book posts. The NYT reports that the raid comes as the country debates a new social media law, cracking down on ‘hate speech.’  Prime Minister, Merkel, had previously met with Face book’s Zuckerberg to discuss cracking down on the criticism of Islam on social media and now citizens are being fined for their ‘hateful rhetoric.’ In Europe, at the present, has become illegal to criticize the migrants or Islam, resulting in fines or detainment.

The U.N., Organization of Islamic Conference, a group of 57 Muslim states has been attempting to enforce global blasphemy laws, as delineated in The Istanbul Process, has been working for over 15 years to prevent or limit criticism of Islam and the Prophet.

Now the enforcement of ‘blasphemy laws’ are closer than we would have imagined. Canada, recently detained a Christian, conservative author, lecturer, social media blogger, and Tea Party Patriot, ‘Wild Bill for America;’ and confiscated his I-pad upon arrival at their airport. Wild Bill was on his way to speak at an anti-Islam conference.  He was arrested and detained for seven hours, the authorities read his I-Pad, retreated behind closed doors and concluded that he was ‘smuggling hate speech on his I-Pad!’  Therefore, he was arrested for hate speech that he never spoke.  His I-Pad was being sent to Ottawa for forensic examination and possible tariff violation.  The actions of the Canadian officers clearly were supporting Sharia Law, where there can be no criticism of Islam.  Furthermore, their actions set a very dangerous precedent for their citizens and foreigners travelling to Canada.  Will their laptops, books and briefcases be confiscated because of their religious or political beliefs based upon suspicion or notoriety?

America has been under censorship for ‘hate speech’ just like our counterparts, but to a lesser degree   Face book and Twitter has blocked, shut down or taken posts down when the blogger’s rhetoric was interpreted as being hateful, especially toward Islam.  On our universities conservative speakers have been boycotted and shut down by anarchy groups such as Antifa, BLM and Muslim Brotherhood front groups, SJP and MSA. Universities have even created ‘Free Speech Zones’ designed to regulate freedom of speech or expression.

The regulation of Free Speech through legislation is perhaps the most dangerous of all.  In April, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious, or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence or animus targeting a minority in the US.” What is disconcerting about this legislation is that it was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmagageUSA, formerly EmergeUSA, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, MPAC.

Most recently, the House has introduced a bill, H Res. 257, “condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence or animus targeting a minority in the U.S.  This bill urges that the DOJ, FBI, Sate Dept. become involved in these efforts, therefore, law enforcement could enforce an alleged criminal act.  Could this bill be a precursor to ‘Blasphemy Laws,’ where criticism of Islam could be punishable?

Americans must oppose any legislation that will result in the punishment of Free Speech.

Democrats Play Dog Whistle Politics, Too. Just Ask Bill Cosby.

Two weeks ago, entertainer extraordinaire Bill Cosby was handed a hung jury in his sexual assault trial in Norristown, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia.

Regardless of what you think of Cosby and the allegations made against him, a jury of his peers spoke and they concluded that they couldn’t reach unanimous agreement on any of the three charges, thus a hung jury.

That should have been the end of the case and the end of the story. It should have been time for everyone to move on with their lives; it should have been a time for Cosby to get back on stage and do what he does best—to entertain and challenge America; especially Black America.

But that is not what happened on June 17th. Within minutes of Judge Steven T. O’Neill’s declaration of a mistrial, Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele vehemently asserted that he would retry Cosby as soon as possible. By law, they have up to four months to make a final decision to retry.

Steele said, “We will reevaluate and review our case and will retry it and move as soon as possible.”

He went on to declare: “[Cosby’s accuser Andrea Constand] is entitled to a verdict in this case.”

Please allow me to interpret this for you. Steele means she is entitled to a verdict that “he” agrees with.

Constand was not entitled to a verdict; Cosby was entitled to a trial by a jury of her “peers,” nothing more, nothing less.

Those who follow my writings know that I rarely, if ever, invoke race into my arguments, but I would be remiss not to point out the issue of race in this particular case.

In 2015, Steele defeated former Republican Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor in a very heated race. Steele made the veiled promise of a conviction of legendary entertainer Bill Cosby, the central issue in the election. In 2005, when Castor was the district attorney, he declined to prosecute Cosby in the rape allegation brought forward by Constand, because “there was insufficient evidence.”

So, Steele comes along in 2015 and says if you elect me, I will re-open the case against Cosby that was dropped nearly ten years ago.

According to the 2010 census, the county is 79 percent White non-Hispanic, 8.7 percent Black or African American, 6.4 percent Asian, and 4.3 percent Hispanic or Latino.

Republicans have a well-earned reputation for using race to scare White folks into voting for them and are rightfully called out on this practice, but I find it amazing when White, liberal Democrats use the same tactic, liberals, especially Black ones, get laryngitis.

So, Steele used a caricature of the world famous Black comedian to convince White voters in Montgomery County that he would save them from thuggish predators like Cosby, a blind philanthropist, who was once called “America’s Dad.”

Dog whistle rhetoric

Aren’t these the same dog whistles that Democrats accuse Republicans of using?

Look at the 2015 campaign TV commercial Steele ran against Castor using the allegations against Cosby. When I saw this ad two years ago, I was immediately transported back to 1990 when segregationist Republican Senator Jesse Helms ran his infamous “hands ad.”

In 1990, Harvey Gantt, mayor of Charlotte, N.C. was leading Helms in his reelection bid for the U.S. Senate. Gantt would have become the first Black senator in North Carolina’s history. As soon as Helms aired the hands ad, the race was, for all practical purposes, over.

There is absolutely no doubt that Helms’ ad was racist and meant to scare White folks to turnout for his reelection. Likewise, Steele did the same thing, but since he is a liberal, White Democrat, there was no public outcry.

Some political insiders have suggested that Steele’s ultimate goal is to run for governor of Pennsylvania; a conviction in the Cosby trial was critical stepping-stone to the governor’s mansion.

It’s all or nothing for Steele. Cosby, and by extension Blacks in Pennsylvania, are simply pawns in the game that the district attorney is playing to get what he wants politically.

The Congressional Black Caucus raised holy hell in 1990 denouncing the Helms’ TV ad; Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were both all over TV screaming racism; the NAACP and Urban League were sending out massive amounts of mail coming out against Helms and Republicans.

These folks and groups all “claim” to be for justice and equality for all, but I guess you have to add, “if” they agree with your politics. It is public knowledge that Cosby has opened his wallet to many civil rights groups lending his celebrity to various social causes for decades.

So, to all the Blacks who are running away from Cosby, like the plague, and have suddenly come down with a severe case of laryngitis, I say that today Bill Cosby has been tried and convicted in the White liberal court of public opinion, but ask yourself, who will stand up for you when it’s your turn?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Brinson brings the words of Jesus to a Mosque

BIRMINGHAM, Ala./PRNewswire/ — After receiving threats and negative blowback from an AL.com article by Cameron Smith entitled “A few Baptists and a GOP candidate walk into an Alabama mosque…” which mentions his recent speech at an Alabama mosque, Dr. Randy Brinson, physician, lay minister and candidate for the Republican Senate seat formerly held by Jeff Sessions, spoke today about his recent visit to the Hoover Crescent Islamic Center.

Brinson’s Statement:

“I had been asked by several Birmingham doctors to visit the medical clinic on the same property as the Islamic Center.  They’d heard about my plans for health care reform and wanted to speak with me about that, and my other campaign positions.  After we’d spoken about this, I was invited to an Interfaith meeting that was being held that evening with members of Shades Mountain Baptist Church.  Until they asked me to participate, I had no idea that the Interfaith meeting was going on.”

“God opened this door for me, and I used the opportunity He’d given me to extend an olive branch and share my faith in the love and mercy of Jesus Christ to everyone there.  It was a tremendous opportunity to do what we’re told to do in Mark 16:15, to proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.”

“Some people won’t vote for me because I went to a mosque and spoke to 140 Muslims about Jesus, and that’s okay. I don’t regret taking advantage of a God-given circumstance to bear witness and give my testimony about what the Lord has done in my life.  If sharing my faith costs me this election, then so be it.  I know what’s important, and first and foremost, that’s my salvation through Jesus Christ,”  Brinson said.

In the AL.com article Cameron Smith wrote:

If you think a masjid might be intimidating to a few Baptists, imagine what it would be like for a few Muslims to spend time with 4,000 Baptists on Sunday morning in Alabama. In fact, Taufique’s estimate of the entire Muslim population in the greater Birmingham area is about the same size as my church’s membership roll.

[ … ]

But here’s the amazing part, we also discussed our clear theological conflicts. Their belief in the oneness of Allah is wholly incompatible with the Christian belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God. For Christians, Jesus’s divinity, death and resurrection is a necessary element for salvation. Muslims believe we will all stand before Allah on the Day of Judgment and to be measured against the Six Articles of Faith and our deeds during our lives.

The central tenets of one faith are heresy to the other. Neither the Baptists nor the Muslims in attendance made any attempt to downplay the disagreement or modify our respective theologies to make others more comfortable. It simply wasn’t necessary. Neither Christian nor Muslim likely won converts over the course of the evening, but we did take a critical step towards building friendships. [Emphasis added]

Brinson has a long history of faith-based activities. Apart from nearly 30 years at Taylor Road Baptist Church and countless mission trips, he has been involved in Christian music since 1999, when he brought WAY-FM to Montgomery. In 2003, he and his wife Pam formed Redeem the Vote to engage more people of faith in the political process. In 2006, he became head of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, and in 2008 was a senior advisor to Governor Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign.

Brinson stepped down as head of Redeem the Vote and the Christian Coalition earlier this year to run for the Senate seat previously held by Jeff Sessions.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Muslim Violence Increases As Michigan Now Aims For Islamic Governorship

Hizballah-linked Paraguayan is Charged in Miami in a Drug Conspiracy – IPT News

America’s Gang Crisis: Congressional Hearing Focus on MS-13

As with international terrorists, transnational gangs exploit immigration failures.

Failures of the immigration system are, once again, behind headline-making news reports. Last week two Congressional hearings were conducted into what has become America’s most pernicious and violent transnational gang, MS-13 that now operates in some 40 states.

Illustration by Graham Smith

I am very familiar with MS-13, I began investigating them nearly 25 years ago early into my assignment at the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force following my promotion to INS Senior Special Agent.

Back then the number of the members of MS-13 in New York was small, consequently and the impact they had was also relatively small.

The immigration policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations certainly did not help law enforcement.  However, the greatest influx of MS-13 gang members is directly related to the flood of Unaccompanied Minors from Central America during the latter part of the Obama administration.

On April 28, 2017 Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at the federal building in Central Islip where the Congressional field hearing would be held nearly two months later.  His speech, and his message, was reported by CBS news, Attorney General Sessions To Gangs: ‘We Are Targeting You.’

Yet the enforcement of our immigration laws by the Trump administration and by Attorney General Sessions has been frequently attacked by the media and by politicians, especially the “leaders” of Sanctuary Cities.

On June 20, 2017 the House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence conducted a filed hearing on Long Island in Central Islip, New York, on the topic,  Combating Gang Violence On Long Island: Shutting Down The MS-13 Pipeline.

That “pipeline” crosses the U.S./Mexican border and is operated by members of drug cartels and transnational gangs.

It is important to read the prepared testimony of Subcommittee Chairman Peter King who focused on how the flood of unaccompanied minors from Central America flooded America with young and violent gang members who are now recruiting more gang members in our schools.

Here is the brief description of that hearing, and its predication, as posted on the official Congressional website:

This field hearing will examine the threat posed by transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), particularly Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) and the extent to which this violent gang is able to circumvent border security measures to gain entry into the U.S.  Since January 2016, there have been 17 murders linked to MS-13 in Suffolk County alone. The hearing will feature testimony from the stakeholders related to the interaction and cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to combat MS-13. Additionally, testimony will be provided by community members directly impacted by these TCOs. The two panels reflect the broad cross section of the community required to respond to the threat posed by MS-13 and other TCOs on Long Island and across the nation.

The very next day, on June 21, 2017 the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “The MS-13 Problem: Investigating Gang Membership, its Nexus to Illegal Immigration, and Federal Efforts to End the Threat.

It is important to read the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley’s statement for that hearing and watch the video.

Here is an excerpt from Chairman Grassley’s statement:

This organization has been dubbed the world’s “most dangerous gang,” and some say it could be a terrorist organization. But, you wouldn’t expect anything less from a group whose motto is “kill, rape, and control.”

Unfortunately, over the past two years, this terrifying motto has become a vicious reality for many communities across our nation. So far this year, the gang has been publicly linked to dozens of high-profile killings, rapes, and assaults across the country, from the Washington D.C. metro area to Houston, Texas.

Undoubtedly, there are many more that simply haven’t been reported.

The mainstream media that reported on these hearings all but avoided mentioning that multiple failures of the immigration system have enabled these violent criminals to enter the United States and that Border Security Is National Security.

The “journalists” also blithely ignore that Sanctuary Cities: Where Hypocrisy Rules, often harbor and shield criminal aliens from detection by immigration law enforcement personnel.

In point of fact, Opponents of Border Security and Immigration Law Enforcement Aid Human Traffickers.  The most effective way to attack the human smugglers, who facilitate the entry of transnational gang members such as MS-13 is to have ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents work closely with local police and other law enforcement agencies to gain access to smuggled aliens who could then provide actionable intelligence to enable ICE and the Border Patrol to identify, locate and ultimately arrest human traffickers and dismantle their operations.

Shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE also shields gang members and smugglers.  It is nearly impossible to identify human traffickers without interviewing the aliens whom they smuggled into the United States.

Illegal aliens who cooperate with law enforcement authorities can be granted visas that enable them to remain in the United States and legally work- to encourage such individuals to come forward without fear.

As an INS special agent my law enforcement colleagues, on the local, state of federal level, often told me that the granting of such visas to illegal aliens provided far more important intelligence that could any other incentive.

If mayors of Sanctuary Cities were truly concerned about doing what is compassionate, they should issue public service announcements, urging illegal aliens to come forward if they have significant information that could aid ICE agents in identifying and ultimately arresting criminals including human traffickers living in their communities to safeguard those who live in those ethnic immigrant communities, where these transnational criminals live and ply their “trades.”

This would simply be an extension of “If you see something, say something.”  (If you know something say something!)

Those mayors should require their respective police departments to work closely with ICE agents rather than prevent them from working with those agents.

Yet this fact is utterly ignored by the media and by many politicians.  In fact the media often portray mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” as heroes who shield illegal aliens from immigration agents who, according to the narrative, are the “bad guys.”

There is an additional price to be paid for this false and dangerous narrative, as reported on June 19, 2017, Citing Uptick in Attacks, Senators Request Better Protection for ICE Officers.

Here is an expert from that report that appeared in Government Executive:

According to ICE, there have been 19 recorded assaults on ICE personnel in 2017 through May 22, compared to 24 incidents in all of 2016. (Senators) Johnson and McCaskill also requested data since 2010, what DHS and ICE have done already to protect employees, and whether assailants have been prosecuted.

Thomas Homan, ICE’s acting director, at a congressional hearing last week blamed the media and immigrant groups for putting officers at risk by promoting false or misleading reports about the nature of their jobs. His employees, Homan said, have been “unfairly vilified for simply trying to do their jobs.”

“People have the right to protest, but ICE officers also have rights,” Homan told a House Appropriations Committee panel. “They have a right to enforce the law safely and return to their families at the end of the day.”

Homan promoted the controversial practice of making immigration arrests at courthouses, noting it helped with safety for his officers because they could be certain the detainees did not have any weapons on them. He decried as untrue any reports that ICE employees were making arrests at schools or hospitals. ICE officers, he said, should be celebrated for keeping communities safe rather than depicted as inhumane or callous.

As to the supposedly “controversial practice of making immigration arrests in courthouses,” arrest operations are inherently dangerous.  Individuals, especially those who face severe consequences for their crimes, can become extremely violent in an effort to evade law enforcement.  Sociopathic criminals including those who are addicted to narcotics, may react irrationally when confronted by law enforcement.

Generally everyone entering a courthouse is carefully screened for weapons.

A courthouse is often the best place to take a defendant into custody.  I speak from many years of experience.

It is particularly ironic and, indeed, vexing that there are judges and lawyers (who are “officers of the court”) who oppose federal law enforcement officers executing lawfully issued warrants in a building dedicated to the Constitution and to the principles of the rule of law and justice.

Furthermore, when an arrest goes badly on the street or a building, and a gunfight ensues, innocent civilians as well as agents and the defendant, are placed in extreme mortal danger.

No rational, reasonable or compassionate person would rather risk innocent lives rather than facilitate the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws that have absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, ethnicity, but have everything to do with public safety, national security and the well being of America and Americans.

Considering the foregoing, I am compelled to remind you that the ENLIST Act (H.R. 60) would undermine national security and public safety, providing gang members with access to military training and military bases.  When “Compassion” Endangers National SecurityThe landmines of illegal aliens entering military service.