It is, or ought to be, clear to everyone by now that Black Lives Matter is not a genuine movement for racial justice and a more equitable society, but a Marxist organization using real, exaggerated, and imagined racial injustice to try to destroy the United States. Anyone who is still in doubt about this should consider the fact that some blacks are still enslaved today, and Black Lives Matter never has and never will say a word about it, because that organization doesn’t really care about black lives.
If they did actually care about the lives of black people, Black Lives Matter would today be drawing international attention to statements made recently by the Mauritanian anti-slavery activist Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh of the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement (IRA). According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh stated in a June 18 interview: “Unfortunately, there is still slavery in Mauritania. More than 20% of people in Mauritania suffer from slavery – a situation where a person owns another person and does whatever he wants with him at any given moment. This situation exists here in Mauritania, unfortunately.”
Al-Sheikh further explained that slaves are often even “bequeathed from father to son. A person can own a slave and when that person dies, his children inherit the slave, who is later bequeathed to the grandchildren. This thing exists in Mauritania, unfortunately.” Even worse, “anyone who speaks out is considered a criminal whose natural place in in jail. Until not so long ago, [whoever spoke up] would have been killed.”
As an anti-slavery activist, Al-Sheikh has experienced this herself: “I was arrested and tortured multiple times. I was tortured both mentally and physically. The last time I was arrested, I had a 1.5-year-old baby. They separated us by force. And they weaned him. The Mauritanian state weaned my baby – a 1.5-year-old baby. He was weaned. And they prevented me from seeing him, and they wouldn’t let my husband or relatives visit me.”
Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh’s story is just one of innumerable such accounts. Why does Mauritania continually drag its feet about eradicating slavery, and persecute anti-slavery activists? The dirty little secret here is that it is because slavery is sanctioned in Islam.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-07-09 05:12:232020-07-09 05:14:14Why Isn’t Black Lives Matter Protesting the Slavery That Still Exists Today?
A Toronto-based leader of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement was exposed dehumanizing white people. A Black Muslim and race supremacist, Yusra Khogali was caught in a series of social media posts that attacked people based on nothing more than the color of their skin.
Khogali’s social media post goes into a pseudo-scientific rant on melanin and concludes that the lack of melanin in white people means they have “genetic defects.”
Khogali adds that white people have a “higher concentration of enzyme inhibitors” which suppresses melanin production, adding that melanin is important for a number of things such as “strong bones, intelligence, vision and hearing,” which for her means that black people are super humans. She continues in comments to her original Facebook post, “melatonin directly communicates with cosmic energy.”
The posts have since been deleted.
The irony of the attack is not lost. BLM prides itself for uplifting the value of black lives, yet, in attempting to do so, uses dehumanizing narratives and racial attacks against others.
Speaking to the extremism, Clarion Project’s National Correspondent Shireen Qudosi shares how BLM isn’t rooted in human rights but is deeply rooted in the language of divisiveness.
Also why I have never supported BLM. Black Lives Matter in its very name invokes the race and label of skin color, distinctions that gave birth to the problem in the first place. https://t.co/9IjhCkV2AHpic.twitter.com/WYrrbiOwwh
Khogali’s social media posts and presence in the Canadian activism sphere are nothing new and have been ongoing for at least the last three years. In fact, they’ve been deflected by BLM leaders when reporters drew attention to them in the past and, instead, BLM has been rewarded by the community.
The BLM Founder Who Begged Allah For Strength Not To ‘Kill Sub Human Whites’ Received a Government Award ‘Encouraging A Run For Public Office’ https://t.co/1u9CZEDHNk via @TheNatPulse >> #YusraKhogali is a co founder of #BlackLivesMatter and a self proclaimed "Trained marxist."
— Marine Corps Veteran (@BigSarge049) July 6, 2020
Given the rise of the cancel culture that affects conservatives for saying the wrong word at the wrong time, it’s unlikely Khogali will be canceled, let alone corrected for her extremist views.
Clarion Project recently partnered with CELL (Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab) to bring you a complex but needed conversation on designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.
Our special guest Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, has been an integral and informed voice on the rising violence carried out by Antifa in the United States and the subsequent inquiry to designate them as a terror group.
McCarthy is is best known for leading the prosecution against the Blind Sheik (Omar Abdel Rahman) and 11 other jihadi terrorists for their part in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and plots to bomb other New York City landmarks.
After the 9/11 terror attacks, McCarthy supervised the U.S. attorney’s command post near Ground Zero. He later served as an adviser to the deputy secretary of defense. McCarthy is a highly respected author, senior fellow at the National Review Institute and contributing editor at National Review.
Host Ryan Mauro, director of Clarion Intelligence Network and Shillman Fellow, guided the conversation on the complex structures of a terror designation.
During the webinar, McCarthy framed several key questions and comparisons that address the legal and practical challenges of designating Antifa a terror group:
McCarthy noted that people typically decide what outcome they want, then work backwards. A better approach, he opines, is to organize the charge around the evidence.
The law isn’t fixated on how organized a group is (for example, compare the Mafia, which is highly structured, to Antifa, which is a decentralized group), but whether it’s organized to violate the law.
When asked about the confusion over Antifa being “anti-fascist” and using a moniker to gain moral and financial support, McCarthy warned about the “exquisite” use of language these groups use to gain cover for their violence. He compares the better-known example of CAIR, who are “very shrewd about wrapping themselves in American civil rights.”
“Even though they’re promoting an ideology that would undermine civil rights [sharia law], they wrap themselves in the thing they’re trying to destroy,” he commented.
Mauro and McCarthy also discussed the intersections between the Nation of Islam, Islamist Jihad, the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood as examples of how terror designations played out — or didn’t, and how that may inform us as to how an Antifa designation might be handled.
You can watch the full webinar here:
Clarion Project thanks our partners at CELL (Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab) for helping to make this program possible, with a special thanks to Mr. Larry Mizel for his courageous leadership and generous support in our important work.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2020-07-08 13:00:182020-07-08 13:00:18VIDEO: Antifa and the Terror Designation Matrix
This is what antifa rioters have been systemically doing to the security cameras in downtown. They climb up and use weapons to destroy them. @MultCoSO is asking for help in identifying this vandal: pic.twitter.com/Q6QX6EtL1A
Is it a case of ordained fate we cannot escape or is it that We the People are too dense to learn from our own mistakes? Paging through humanity’s history, time and again we find numerous instances of costly mistakes where people ignore facts and reason by entrusting their lives to a “savior.” And time and again, we have ended up paying the price for our folly. If we are not genetically doomed to make these ruinous mistakes—which I am certain we are not—then do we commit them out of wishful thinking, laziness, desperation, or some combination of the three?
To illustrate how mistake-prone we are, a few examples will suffice. In order to address economic disparity, a pivotal concern of humanity, Karl Marx showed up trumpeting his battle cry, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx announced that the proletariat is the producer of wealth and that capitalists are leeches robbing them of the fruits of their labor.
In effect, Karl Marx originated the concept of class warfare, the poor against the rich. He urged the workers to rise, rid themselves of the rich and take full possession of their own self-produced goods. Humanity’s poor masses found their messiah in this ideologue, rallied behind him, and got to experience a Marxist paradise. While Marx’s summons was aimed at the laboring class of industrial Europe, the peasantry in both Russia and later in China enthusiastically answered his call. The results: many of the rich went to early graves, only to be replaced by a new class of overlord apparatchiks, and the poor continued to be poor. In the process, the disciples of Marx and Lenin such as Stalin and Mao subjected over 100 million to death, and untold millions suffered for many decades while the promised workers paradise never materialized.
Democrats and Incentive
Dis-incentive was the “Achilles Heel” of Marxism. Except for the ruling class, whether you worked hard or loafed, you basically got the same incentive under Marxism. The Democrats and Biden basically want to transform America to cultural-Marxism: a failed economic philosophy, in a poorly disguised form that this Party has been relentlessly pushing throughout the ages. Democrats’ redistribution of wealth does nothing but dis-incentivize an individual’s prime motive force “self-exertion” for “self-reward.” Democrats feel the rich have too much and the poor should simply get a much bigger share of what the rich have. If that is not the exact Marxist failed philosophy, then what is it?
While Marx’s workers’ paradise ideal continued to struggle, and kept failing miserably to deliver its promises, its offshoots such as European Socialism and now American Redistributionism under Democratic leadership are still aims to create a society where those who succeed in generating wealth turn over the major share of their earnings to those who do not.
Dis-incentivizing individual exertion through confiscatory taxes is the surest way to reduce the overall wealth of any society. The rich resort to strategies that shelter their wealth, become discouraged in investing their funds, and then the overall wealth of the society declines. It is investment by those who have funds that creates wealth and jobs. And it is jobs that are the best way to help the have-nots, not government handouts.
In order to address economic issues effectively, government policies should facilitate all individuals and companies to create more wealth, not penalize those who have managed to create and acquire wealth by over-regulation and excessive taxation. The last thing any government should do is to use the ineffective deadly weapon of classism, pitting the poor against the rich.
Hitlerian ‘Salvation’
Not long after the launch of Marxism, another “savior,” by the name of Adolph Hitler, rose to power on the promise of fixing humanity’s economic and other problems at its very foundation based on nationalism. Specifically, he proposed ridding the world of its burden of undesirables and unfit, with Jews on top of his list. Marx’s trump “card” was class warfare. Hitler flashed the ethnic-race card. He claimed that the Aryan race was the cream of humanity’s crop that brought nothing but good to the table, while Semitic, black and yellow people represented exploiters and aberrations to be eliminated. For good measure, he lumped in the mentally challenged, homosexuals and the physically handicapped as humanity’s misfits as well to be rid of.
Picking a scapegoat has always worked magic over the millennia, and even Hitler’s syphilitic brain recognized its value for his campaign of mass genocide. The results: Millions died, among them some of mankind’s best-educated and productive Jews. Hitlerism and Communism, for all intents and purposes, either died or went on life support, providing ample opportunities for other saviors.
Islam to the Rescue
In no time at all Islam, long fractured, lethargic and dormant, found a new vitality under the leadership of the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, who raised the Black Standard and promised Allah’s paradise to the totality of mankind for the simple price of accepting his Shiite brand of Islam. A naïve dreamer of an American President, Jimmy Carter, hailed Khomeini as a saint-savior, an answer to a prayer, so to speak. Not to be left out, shortly after the Shiite Khomeini’s lightning success in Iran that deposed the Shah and established the Islamic Republic, a Sunni Muslim “Osama Bin Laden” launched his campaign of bringing about a worldwide Caliphate, as the sure cure for humanity’s ills.
In contrast to Marx’s class warfare and Hitler’s ethnic-race rallying cries, Khomeini and Bin Laden hoisted the ever-effective battle call of religion. The very concept of religion that stands for uniting people has been subverted, time and again, by clever and devious opportunists as means of pitting people against each other.
America at a Critical Point
The great nation of all nations, America, is at a critical point and crossroads. The current uprising under the direction of George Soros/Obama and the DNC has been abysmal in all areas vital to our nation. Islamist jihadists are on the march and democracy is in retreat. The Islamic Republic of Iran is rapidly moving toward acquiring nuclear weapon capability.
Domestically, our house is in shambles. The national debt is staggering. If Biden is elected, the nation’s debt will exceed that of our obligation under all other previous administrations combined. Our children and grandchildren will have to service this debt at economically soaring rates. Even today, forty cents of the Federal tax dollar go to servicing the loans—much of it to China and foreign entities.
It is imperative that we, as a nation, live within our means, just like families do. In like manner that families should cut back on everything they can, in order to live within their means, the Federal Government needs do the same. It must reduce the size of government and eliminate hundreds of bureaucracies that are redundant or completely useless as President Trump has done. We, as responsible citizens, must make sure that President Trump is reelected.
If the Democrats take over the White House, America, as we know it, will not be recognizable.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Amil Imanihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAmil Imani2020-07-08 08:48:052020-07-08 08:54:26The Left and the Rise of Marxism
Illustrating the national security threats created by the nation’s immigration system, the overwhelming majority of individuals convicted of terrorism are foreigners who entered the United States legally through various federal programs. Three out of every four convicted terrorists between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2016 are foreign born and came to the United States through our immigration system, according to a new report issued jointly by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
At least 549 individuals were convicted of terrorism-related charges in American federal courts since 2001 and 402 of them—approximately 73%–were foreign-born, the report says. Here’s the breakdown by citizenship at the time of their convictions; 254 were not U.S. citizens, 148 were naturalized and received American citizenship and 147 were U.S. born. Additionally, 1,716 foreigners with national security concerns were removed from the United States. The Trump administration stresses that figures include only those aliens who were convicted or removed and therefore do not represent the total measure of foreign terrorist infiltration of the United States. Statistics on individuals facing terrorism charges who have not yet been convicted will be provided in follow-up reports that will be made available to the public.
This DHS/DOJ report, issued this month, is disturbing enough and reveals that a significant number of terrorists entered the country through immigration programs that use family ties and extended-family chain migration as a basis for entry. Among them is Mufid Elfgeeh, a national of Yemen who benefitted from chain migration in 1997 and was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison for attempting to recruit fighters for ISIS. Sudanese Mahmoud Amin Mohamed Elhassan came to the U.S. in 2012 as a relative of a lawful permanent resident and eventually pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS. Pakistani Uzair Paracha was admitted to the U.S. in 1980 as a family member of a lawful permanent resident and in 2006 was sentenced to more than three decades in prison for providing material support to Al Qaeda. Khaleel Ahmed, a national of India, was admitted to the United States in 1998 as a family member of a naturalized United States citizen. Ahmed eventually became an American citizen and in 2010 was sentenced to more than eight years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.
Other convicted terrorists came to the U.S. through the controversial visa lottery program, the multi-agency probe found. Among them is Abdurasaul Hasanovich Juraboev, a national of Uzbekistan who was admitted into the country as a diversity visa lottery recipient in 2011. In 2015, he pleaded guilty to conspiring to support ISIS and in 2017 Juraboev was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Sudanese Ali Shukri Amin was admitted to the U.S. in 1999 as the child of a diversity visa lottery recipient and subsequently obtained American citizenship through naturalization. In 2015, he was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support and resources to ISIS. Amin admitted to using social media to provide advice and encouragement to ISIS and its supporters and facilitated ISIS supporters seeking to travel to Syria to join the terrorist group. Amin also helped a Virginia teen named Reza Niknejad get to Syria to join ISIS in 2015.
“The United States faces a serious and persistent terror threat, and individuals with ties to terror can and will use any pathway to enter our country,” the new DHS/DOJ report states. “Accordingly, DHS has taken significant steps to improve the security of all potential routes used by known or suspected terrorists (KST) to travel to the United States to ensure that individuals who would do harm to Americans are identified and detected, and their plots are disrupted. These figures reflect the challenges faced by the United States and demonstrate the necessity to remain vigilant and proactive in our counterterrorism posture.”
EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2020-07-08 08:41:592020-07-08 08:41:593 Out of 4 Convicted Terrorists Came to U.S. Legally Via Current Immigration System
Some of America’s largest corporations have pledged or donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the main Black Lives Matter organization, founded by “trained Marxists,” that calls for replacing the nuclear family with a “village.”
Prominent brands giving money include Amazon, Microsoft, Nabisco, Gatorade, Airbnb, and the Atlantic and Warner record labels.
Black Lives Matter as a movement or sentiment is not necessarily tied to the radical organization, called the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, but it has become the greatest beneficiary of corporate largesse.
The Daily Signal previously reported that the website for the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation notes that replacing the nuclear family structure and promoting the LGBT political agenda are central to its mission. A co-founder also has said that she and other “trained Marxists” formed the network foundation.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>
The BLM Global Network Foundation began in 2016 with the fiscal sponsorship of Thousand Currents, a liberal nonprofit group. Susan Rosenberg, convicted and imprisoned in 1984 for domestic terrorism, is vice chairwoman of Thousand Currents’ board of directors, The Daily Signal also reported.
At least 18 companies have donated or pledged to donate money to the BLM Global Network Foundation, according to a list compiled by the Washington-based Capital Research Center, which monitors nonprofits and charities. Another seven companies have not been clear which Black Lives Matter entity they chose for contributions.
Thousand Currents has said that all donations filtered through it, corporate and otherwise, “are received as restricted donations to support the activities of BLM.”
The Daily Signal contacted spokespersons for all the companies mentioned in this report several times over the course of a week, seeking comment about their financial support for the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation.
The Daily Signal asked whether the companies supported that organization’s stated beliefs and goals, which extend well beyond advocating racial equality and opposing police brutality.
Several companies state merely that they are giving to “Black Lives Matter,” without specifying which organization. The BLM Global Network Foundation likely is the recipient, given its prominence, but that isn’t always clear in an announcement.
It also is possible that, similar to the tech giant Cisco, other companies gave to the Black Lives Matter cause through donations to traditional civil rights groups such as the NAACP and the Urban League.
A growing roster of corporations has issued press releases, memos, and tweets vowing financial support for “Black Lives Matter,” linking directly to or using the Twitter handle of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. Here are 18 of them, plus some examples of ambiguous giving.
1. DoorDash
DoorDash, which delivers prepared food, gave $500,000 to the organization. In an email to The Daily Signal, DoorDash spokesperson Liz Jarvis-Shean wrote:
In partnership with our Black@DoorDash Employee Resource Group (ERG), DoorDash pledged a total of $1 million in donations, with $500,000 going to Black Lives Matter via the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and $500,000 to create a fund to be directed by the Black@DoorDash ERG towards state and local organizations.
Our goal with these donations and the other actions we announced is to stand with our employees and community members to fight injustice, inequality and discrimination and to support organizations that are working to root out structural and systemic racism and providing local community development, mentorship, education and entrepreneurship programs to support Black communities across the country.
2. Deckers
“Deckers as a company is standing together in solidarity to fight for equality,” Deckers Brands said in an email to The Daily Signal.
“To show immediate support, we are donating a total of $500,000 to the following organizations,” the company said, listing seven organizations, including “Black Lives Matter Foundation,” which it said “builds power to bring justice, healing, and freedom to Black people across the globe.”
Although a smaller organization called the Black Lives Matter Foundation exists, as does another called Movement for Black Lives, a blog post from the Deckers brand Ugg links to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. That post uses language similar to the email from Deckers to The Daily Signal.
3. Amazon
Amazon linked to the BLM Global Network Foundation in a press release June 9, identifying it as among 12 groups that would get a total of $10 million from the online retail giant. Amazon announced:
As part of that effort, Amazon will donate a total of $10 million to organizations that are working to bring about social justice and improve the lives of Black and African Americans. Recipients—selected with the help of Amazon’s Black Employee Network (BEN)—include groups focused on combating systemic racism through the legal system as well as those dedicated to expanding educational and economic opportunities for Black communities.
4. Gatorade
Gatorade, the sports drink maker, identified the BLM Global Network Foundation as being among groups benefiting from a $500,000 donation.
Microsoft announced June 5 that it would donate $250,000 to the “Black Lives Matter Foundation,” but linked to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation.
Microsoft also named five other civil rights organizations with whom it would “deepen our engagement” by donating $250,000 apiece.
6. Glossier
Glossier, a skin care and makeup company, said in a May 30 press release that it would divide $500,000 among five organizations, including “Black Lives Matter,” and linked to the BLM Global Network Foundation’s website.
7. 23andMe
23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki announced June 2 that the company and its employees would donate to “Black Lives Matter” and linked to the BLM Global Network Foundation.
8. Airbnb
Airbnb announced on Twitter that it was splitting a $500,000 donation between the NAACP and the “@Blklivesmatter Foundation,” using the organization’s Twitter handle.
We stand with #BlackLivesMatter. We are donating a total of $500,000 to the @NAACP and the @Blklivesmatter Foundation in support of their fight for equality and justice, and we'll be matching employee donations to both groups. Because a world where we all belong takes all of us. pic.twitter.com/lIfsLgvq2H
We will not stay silent on the issue of systemic racism. We stand with the Black community and recognize the importance of taking action to drive change. As a first step towards this, Degree is pledging $100K to @Blklivesmatter#BlackLivesMatterpic.twitter.com/YHP5nfzJTK
Bungie didn’t provide a dollar amount, but said it would make “financial contributions” to six organizations and linked to the BLM Global Network Foundation.
Ritz, a cracker brand from Nabisco, announced June 4 that it and sister brands were donating $500,000 to the NAACP and to the BLM Global Network Foundation.
We've come together as sister brands to support @NAACP and @blklivesmatter with a $500,000 donation as an important step in our commitment to helping impact change. pic.twitter.com/VLB87auphS
Dropbox founder and CEO Drew Houston announced June 3 that the company was giving $500,000 to the BLM Global Network Foundation, tagging the group on Twitter.
Systemic racism and police brutality in this country must end. I’m personally donating $500,000 to @Blklivesmatter to fight racial injustice. I’ll also match every @Dropbox employee’s donation on top of the company’s match. pic.twitter.com/9pTSu7Q0Ej
Individual employees of Devolver Digital donated $65,000 to the BLM Global Network Foundation as of June 2 through the company’s ActBlue online giving account.
The individual employees of Devolver Digital and the company itself have donated $65,000 in support of the Black Lives Matter movement through the link below.
— Devolver Digital (@devolverdigital) June 2, 2020
15. Skillshare
Skillshare CEO Matt Cooper, in an online message June 1, said the company was “donating to the following organizations” and referred to the “official #BlackLivesMatter Global Network,” which it said “builds power to bring justice, freedom, and space for imagination and innovation to Black people.”Skillshare was among the few businesses to specifically name the network foundation.
16. Square Enix
Square Enix, a game developer, announced that it was giving $250,000 to the NAACP and Black Lives Matter, linking to the BLM Global Network Foundation.
In one tweet, That Game Co. announced plans to give a total of $20,000 to both the NAACP and Black Lives Matter. In a follow-up, the company linked to the BLM Global Network Foundation.
Tinder, the online dating network, announced that it was donating and provided a link to the BLM Global Network Foundation.
Ambiguous Giving
The California-based tech firm Cisco identifies @Blklivesmatter, the Twitter handle for the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, as among recipients of $5 million in donations.
But a Cisco spokesperson says the company isn’t contributing to that main group.
Cisco’s Robyn Blum told The Daily Signal in an email:
With our recently announced $5M donation, we are pleased to be able to pledge funds to these organizations:
• Equal Justice Initiative–a private, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization providing legal representation to people who have been illegally convicted, unfairly sentenced, or abused in state jails and prisons.
• The NAACP Legal Defense Fund–a premier civil rights law organization fighting for racial justice through litigation, advocacy, & public education.
• Color Of Change–America’s largest online racial justice organization.
Contacted again by The Daily Signal with reference to that tweet, Blum said the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation was not among recipients of Cisco’s donations.
The tech company Intel, in a May 31 memo from CEO Bob Swan, announced that the business would donate “$1 million in support of efforts to address social injustice and anti-racism across various nonprofits and community organizations.”
“I also encourage employees to consider donating to organizations focused on equity and social justice, including the Black Lives Matter Foundation, the Center for Policing Equity and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, all of which are eligible for Intel’s Donation Matching Program,” Swan said.
However, the Intel CEO’s memo didn’t provide a link to a Black Lives Matter group. Nor did it specify which foundation—the larger and more prominent BLM Global Network Foundation or the smaller Black Lives Matter Foundation.
The Daily Signal sought clarification from Intel, but it did not respond before publication of this report.
The Pokemon Co. is another example of a company that didn’t specify which organization, but said it was donating $100,000 to Black Lives Matter.
Atlantic Records announced that it “will be contributing to Black Lives Matter and other organizations that are doing crucial work to combat injustice.” But the legendary record company didn’t specify whether it was donating to the BLM Global Network Foundation and didn’t respond to multiple inquiries.
— Atlantic Records (@AtlanticRecords) May 30, 2020
Similarly, Warner Records announced that it would contribute “to Black Lives Matter and other organizations that are doing crucial work to combat racial injustice.”
Discord, a communications company, announced that it is donating to the “Black Lives Matter movement.” It did not respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal about the specific organization.
Pusheen, the company behind the cartoon cat of the same name, called on fans and followers to join it in donating to Black Lives Matter among other organizations, but didn’t specify which BLM entity.
Ubisoft also said that it was contributing $100,000 to both the NAACP and Black Lives Matter, without specifying which organization or affiliate.
We stand in solidarity with Black team members, players, and the Black community. We are making a $100,000 contribution to the NAACP and Black Lives Matter and encourage those who are able to, to donate. #BlackLivesMatterpic.twitter.com/KpHZCF6VWx
This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2020-07-08 08:10:042020-07-08 08:17:28These 18 Corporations Gave Money to Radical Black Lives Matter Group
Yesterday we noted a curious aspect of this case: that Hamas-linked CAIR had not revealed the name of the woman making the complaint. Now it turns out that her name is Aishah. Anyone who has ever been in a Starbucks anywhere knows how easy it would be for a barista, without any malice whatsoever, to mix up two words that sound as similar to each other as “ISIS,” “eye-sis,” and “Aishah,” “eye-shah.” And as the manager of this Target Starbucks noted, “people get their names wrong all the time.” Most don’t make a huge case about it, and don’t get any publicity about it, either. But Hamas-linked CAIR knows how to use cases such as this one to intimidate big companies and shake them down for money in the name of “diversity” and “inclusion.” Today’s nationwide race hysteria makes that all the easier. What is the likelihood that Target Starbucks gives Aishah and Hamas-linked CAIR a massive payout to make this whole thing go away? Oh, about 120%.
An update on this story. “Muslim woman outraged after barista writes ‘ISIS’ on her coffee cup in St. Paul. Target calls it a mistake.” by Mara H. Gottfried, Pioneer Press, July 6, 2020:
While ordering a drink Wednesday in St. Paul, a 19-year-old Muslim woman gave the barista her name — Aishah — and repeated it for clarity.
The Minneapolis woman was shocked when she saw what the barista then wrote on her coffee cup: “ISIS.”
“The word that was written on the drink is a word that shatters the Muslim reputation all around the world,” said Aishah, whom the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Minnesota chapter identified only by her first name for safety reasons.
Target, which runs and operates the Starbucks in St. Paul’s Midway store, says it has apologized and “believe that it was not a deliberate act but an unfortunate mistake,” according to a statement Monday.
Aishah and CAIR-MN on Monday called on the University Avenue Target to fire the employees who were involved, and an attorney submitted a charge of discrimination to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights….
“Unfortunately, with Islamophobia, the No. 1 thing Muslims are … discriminatorily identified (as) is terrorists,” said Jaylani Hussein, CAIR-MN executive director. “… Using this word for us would be the same as a Black man today being … (called) the N-word.”
CAIR-MN: MANAGER ALSO PART OF PROBLEM
When Aishah asked the employee why “ISIS” was written on her cup, the worker “claimed that she had not heard her name correctly,” according to a statement from CAIR-MN.
Aishah had been wearing her hijab, a head covering, which is “clearly a sign of her faith,” Hussein said.
When Aishah asked to speak with a manager, Hussein said the manager responded with: “What is the issue? People get their names wrong all the time.”
Aishah said she felt humiliated, enraged and belittled. She was sent away with a replacement drink and a $25 gift card.
Aishah filed a formal complaint with Target. A corporate representative reached out to her the next day to apologize, according to a Target spokesman, but Aishah said Monday morning she still had not received an apology.
TARGET: ADDITIONAL TRAINING, APOLOGY
Target said in a statement they are “taking appropriate actions with the team member, including additional training, to ensure this does not occur again.”
The Minneapolis-based retailer added: “At Target, we want everyone who shops with us to feel welcomed, valued and respected and we strictly prohibit discrimination and harassment in any form. We are very sorry for this guest’s experience at our store and immediately apologized to her when she made our store leaders aware of the situation. We have investigated the matter and believe that it was not a deliberate act but an unfortunate mistake that could have been avoided with a simple clarification.”…
“This unfortunate incident is particularly appalling in light of the local and national appeals for racial justice and the ongoing calls for meaningful steps towards lasting equity in the United States of America,” said Alec Shaw, a civil rights attorney for CAIR-MN, who called on Cornell to “make the same commitment to stand against Islamophobia and all forms of discrimination and hate.”
At a Philadelphia Starbucks last year, a Muslim customer named Aziz had “ISIS” written on his drink cups. Starbucks called that a “regrettable mistake.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-07-08 07:27:532020-07-08 07:31:20Minnesota: Muslima who claimed discrimination over coffee cup labeled ‘ISIS’ turns out to be named ‘Aishah’
Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar called for the “dismantling” of the U.S. economy and political system Tuesday.
“As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality,” Omar said. “We cannot stop at criminal justice system. We must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.”
Ilhan Omar calls for "dismantling" of the U.S. "economy and political systems." In case it wasn't clear. pic.twitter.com/B8DJdQvSxB
Omar held an event Tuesday in her home state of Minnesota with members of the Minnesota People of Color and Indigenous Caucus. Omar tweeted earlier Tuesday that the purpose of the event was to address “racism in policing” in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death.
The murder of George Floyd reawakened calls to address racism in policing and reform our criminal justice system.
I’m live with leaders of the Minnesota People of Color and Indigenous Caucus to discuss our work to make systemic changes on Facebook now: https://t.co/14DTGnadcT
Omar has joined calls from local Democratic leaders to defund the police after four Minneapolis police officers were fired and charged in connection to Floyd’s death. The Minneapolis City Council unanimously voted to get rid of the city’s police department in June.
Omar said she supported the vote because she believes the Minneapolis Police Department is beyond reform.
“You can’t really reform a department that is rotten to the root,” Omar said at the time. “What you can do is rebuild. And so this is our opportunity, you know, as a city to come together, have the conversation of what public safety looks like, who enforces the most dangerous crimes that take place in our community.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2020-07-08 07:15:512020-07-08 07:22:52Ilhan Omar Calls For The ‘Dismantling’ Of U.S. Economy, Political System
Breaking the transgender spell has cost the author a lot.
Did she impose the Unforgivable Curses? Did she condemn anyone to Azkaban? No; she claimed that a woman should not have forfeited her job for maintaining that men and women are different. And she followed that up by arguing that in fact they are different.
The position J.K. Rowling defended was one which, a few years ago, nearly everyone would have agreed with. In fact, I believe that today also nearly everyone would agree. But a violent and vocal minority not only believe otherwise but viciously attack anyone who disagrees with them. Ms Rowling has been the target of vicious verbal attacks and has even received death threats.
It is sad to see the three principal actors in the Harry Potter stories criticising the author without whom they would not be millionaires. Harry, Hermione and Ron would be ashamed of them.
It is an evident biological and psychological fact that men and women are different; a matter of science and of common sense: they complement each other. This is so obvious that no reasoned case can be made against it: which is why those who oppose it must resort to blind emotion and even physical threats.
Rowling’s statement in defence of her position is moderate and reasonable, yet it has provoked outrage. But the critics have not answered her arguments. Why? Because they can’t.
Through her personal experience and her study of the issues involved she has become deeply concerned about the detrimental effects the trans rights movement is having, and its push to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.
She points out that there is an explosion of young women wishing to transition, and increasing numbers are taking steps that have permanently altered their bodies and taken away their fertility. In those transitioning “autistic girls are hugely over represented in the numbers”.
Rowling refers to researcher Lisa Littman, who wrote a paper expressing concern about Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and who “…had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans”.
Littman was “subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work”.
Rowling shows great sympathy for young people who want to transition, partly because of her own experience when young. She suffered severely with OCD, and her father said openly that he would have preferred a son. Had she been born 30 years later she might have tried to transition. “The lure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.”
Noting that we are living through the most misogynistic period she had experienced, she points out that it’s not considered enough for women to be trans allies. “Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.”
That statement expresses the essence of the problem: women are expected to annihilate themselves. Instead of there being two complementary ways of being human, male and female, the trans activists would blur the distinctions and cancel out the distinct qualities of each sex.
This program has dire consequences for both men and women, but holds special dangers for women, as in the insistence that biological men (there’s really no other kind!) be free to use women’s bathrooms and showers.
As Rowling observes: “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he is a woman – and as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones –then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside”
It should really be no surprise that Rowling takes the stand that she does, for it is in accord with the healthy outlook on human nature implicit in the Harry Potter stories. Women there are portrayed as equal to men, but expressing their humanity in a feminine way. Large families are implicitly defended, as in the Weasley family: seven children with a loving father and mother: a rather poor family but happy.
And when Harry and Ron become romantically interested in girls, it is a healthy attraction.
An underlying theme is the power of a mother’s love, exemplified by Harry’s mother sacrificing her life to save him from the evil Lord Voldemort.
In fact, the theme of a mother’s unique love for her children is manifested when Molly Weasley hurls herself into battle against the formidable Bellatrix Lestrange, in order to defend her daughter Ginny. It is shown too when Narcissa Malfoy, in gratitude to Harry for telling her that her son is alive, lies to Voldemort, thereby risking her own life.
The Potter stories show a contrast between a healthy world and the world of Voldemort and his Death Eaters. And in this vendetta against Joanne Rowling we see something of a parallel. She defends a healthy view of Woman against a sick view that implicitly annihilates Woman.
J.K Rowling deserves support for her courageous stand. And it is good to read in her letter that the overwhelming majority of responses she received were positive, grateful, and supportive.
Professor Dumbledore warned the students at Hogwarts that a time may come “when you have to make a choice between what is right, and what is easy” (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, chapter 37) It is all too easy right now to buckle to a fashionable trend, against all reason.
John Young is a Melbourne based writer on theological, philosophical and social Issues. He is author of several hundred articles and three books: The Natural Economy, Catholic Thinking, and The Scope of… More by John Young
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2020-07-08 07:04:092020-07-08 07:05:49J.K. Rowling and the Cursed Woman
Is it time we stop badmouthing fathers and instead step up to support them?
A recent post on Imgur caught my eye for its startling glimpse into the true state of American families.
Seeking to be a help to others, a young man posted a link to his father’s new YouTube channel titled “Dad, how do I?” The channel was born out of firsthand experience of growing up without a father present to teach vital life skills. Among other things, this channel features a father of two grown children demonstrating how to change a tire, iron a shirt, and fix a leaking toilet.
The videos clearly fill a void. Within hours of posting the link on Imgur, the channel more than doubled its subscriber base. It is approaching 1 million subscribers as of this writing. Comments on the post demonstrate both sarcasm and a secret longing, with some suggesting new topic ideas and others expressing their need for a father figure and his wisdom.
Overwhelmed by the outpouring of need and enthusiasm for his advice, the father produced a thank you video, expressing a genuine humility in his parenting skills, but an earnest desire to help others.
Please understand that I didn’t always do everything right with my kids. We were quick to reconcile if I failed, because you’re going to fail as a dad! It’s part of the human experience, you aren’t going to always do things right, so I think it’s very important to ask for forgiveness and not pretend that you’ve got it all figured out because your kids are going to find out sooner or later that you don’t have it figured out when they grow up.
Again, responses to the video were heartbreaking, including this comment:
My father left when I was 6 and have not heard from him sence [sic]. My mother does not help at all. I feel like this [is] an essence of my father, and I almost started crying… Thank you for being the dad I never had. Thank you for being the light in my dark and broken world. Keep it up.
America is a nation full of lost, lonely, and adrift young adults, many of whom are craving the love, support, and interest of the father they never had. Their voices echo the pain expressed in Whittaker Chambers’ Witness as he relates how his own father was often absent, and was unsupportive even when he was around. Chambers admits to loving his father, but the turmoil his inconsistency caused in their home left a void. Perhaps it’s not surprising then that Chambers went on to engage in aggressive political action, eventually becoming a Communist spy. Chambers eventually reconsidered his ways and became a hard-working, honest American, but it took many years and difficult experiences before he got there.
Consider, however, another young boy trained to be an honest, hard-working American from his earliest days. As told in the story Little Britches, Ralph Moody lost his father at age 11 and had to become the man of the family, helping his mother raise and support their crew of six members. Though young, Moody was up to the task because of the love, character, and work ethic his father had instilled in him.
Lacking the strong father Moody had, young Americans today are headed down the path that Chambers took. Dealing with father loss and the uncertainty which it brings, they are forging ahead, seeking answers and ideologies upon which to hang their hat. Never have we so badly needed men to stand up and humbly say, like the aforementioned father with the YouTube channel, “Hey, I’m not perfect, but I’m here to help you in the ways that I can.”
Fathers, and men in general, have been much maligned in recent decades as imbeciles who can’t do anything right. But even as they’re maligned, there seems to be a deep sense that fathers are greatly needed.
Is it time we stop badmouthing fathers and instead step up to support them? If we can have great leaders today in the smallest unit of society – the family – then perhaps the next generation will grow up to fill the void of great leadership in the nation at large.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2020-07-08 06:53:372020-07-08 06:53:37America’s Fatherless Ache Exposed by Humble YouTube Dad
There’s a new movie that will soon be coming out called Habit. It stars Paris Jackson, the daughter of the notoriously dysfunctional pop star Michael Jackson. And she’s playing a female, lesbian Jesus.
A new blasphemous Hollywood film is predicted to come out soon depicting Jesus as a lesbian woman. The film “Habit” stars Paris Jackson who plays the role of “lesbian Jesus”. Distributors haven’t picked it up as of yet, so let’s please spread awareness and wake people up to the Christianophobic garbage that is spread nowadays, but is somehow accepted and praised by society.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Martin Mawyerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMartin Mawyer2020-07-08 06:24:422020-07-08 07:30:08Warner Brothers Film ‘Habit’ portrays Jesus as a Lesbian Woman. Hollywood would never do this to Mohammed!
(These are my views as a woman living in England, on how the culture and spirit of my country has changed over 50 years. Why the country does not feel protected or strong any more, how it has lost, and is losing it values and decency, and how we are daily losing our free speech.)
Propaganda is information, especially of a biased nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns. Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.
This week the great British public have been released from their imprisonment, and they have been rewarded by being allowed to partake in the great British pastime of socially boozing together. Yes, a trip to the local pub has been the long awaited relief that according to mainstream media many millions of citizens have been eagerly waiting for. Apparently, It was our 4th July, our Super Saturday!
In view of this, TV personality, Dr Hilary also advised local Accident and Emergency units should be on stand-by for an increase in patients on the scale of New Year’s Eve admissions.
As pubs and restaurants once more opened their dusty bolted doors under safe and hygienic distancing measures of course, I drove past some of the most popular inns and restaurants in my area, which is well outside London, but saw little of the eager and long awaiting crowds lining up to get through the doors of the many pubs and restaurants that line our busy main roads and country lanes. There was not the natural and normal buzz of enjoyment or laughter. I witnessed a few solitary cars which were sadly socially parked on once empty car parks. This was also confirmed in other parts of the country.
I wondered if the sobering up from a long three months of being socially distant from others had revealed a reality that only stillness and silence can convey, but I also wondered just how many people were still living under the fear of catching a virus and were more accustomed to their solitary confinement and perceived safety whilst sitting on ‘death watch’?
In contrast, the previous weekend had seen thousands descend onto the beech at Bournemouth in Dorset, reportedly creating widespread havoc with abandoned cars, overcrowding and leaving tons of litter in their wake.
Council leader Vikki Slade said she was “absolutely appalled at the sight of so many people tightly packed on the south coast’s beaches’. Why was she surprised?
Stay at home, unemployed and employed workers and their families had decided that the predicted heat wave, the fresh air, sun, sand and ocean were just what the doctor really ordered rather than a pint of beer which they can buy at the local supermarket at any time. It didn’t take a genius to understand that this type of freedom would then overcrowd certain outdoor areas when foreign travel and imposed restrictions elsewhere had been enforced.
It was also reported that there was also a certain rebellion from some of the beachcombers against officials who were trying to maintain some sort of order.
After witnessing crowded demonstrations/demonstrators in London being allowed to freely assemble and then trash statues with very little resistance; a sense of injustice and mistrust might just have been the key motivator in creating the division now being displayed against authority.
From an objective point of view, it is very cruel that innocent people are being expected to adhere to behavioural techniques, which includes continuous fear and injustice, being implemented against them, only to be ‘chastised’ by the very creators of such confusion and chaos. A psychologist might call this the actions of narcissist parenting.
One of the saddest expectations is the muzzling of adults and children when there is no sufficient evidence to prove that mask wearing prevents a person catching a virus especially in situations where a mask might not be needed. This adds to the isolation and the separation which is being implemented. They also remove your identity.
The Naughty Step for Leicester
Elsewhere in the UK, the citizens in the city of Leicester have been put under lockdown again whilst the rest of England enjoys some freedom. This conveys the message that if we don’t behave elsewhere, we will suffer the same fate once more. We had better conform.
Emergency legislation was also put in place through government so that the police will have the ability to fine people from £100 to £3,000 for repeat offenders who break the lockdown. The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson has defended the decision to lockdown Leicester because of the spike in new cases of people testing positive for Covid-19. There has been no such threat against demonstrators who trash statues. You can watch a report here from the BBC which is biased in that it records only one person being distressed by the lockdown whilst others believe they should comply:
Psychological Warfare and using the virus to implement Communism/Godlessness
The false sense of freedom which citizens are now experiencing is conditional in contrast to the freedom which was once our human rights. Lockdowns have happened quickly and unexpectedly but the curtailing of freedoms have been systematically happening over a period of many years. Resistance has been silenced.
In order to implement this demise, there has been an eradication of free speech, individualism, family and manhood. However, authorities have given the impression that it respects free speech (but only to a few) and respects gender (worshipping homosexuality and promoting feminism). It has also pandered to the over-sensitivities of those who are constantly offended. Fatherless homes and single parenting have also been actively encouraged.
Many people in these groups have sadly been used to further the agenda of Communism which may soon become a One World Order of control. It is a system of godlessness and the majority of church leaders have said or done nothing about it but meekly conformed to the godless system.
Communism, which has at its core Atheism, also has to eradicate any trace of history, including Christianity, which is why it is using a racial issue to stir up hatred. Rebels without a real cause are also jumping on this bandwagon in order to demonstrate against the oppression they inwardly feel.
Instead of uniting us in a fight against Communism; social distancing and the separation of races is keeping us isolated and distracted whilst giving us the impression we are all still fighting the ‘virus’ together.
Entrepreneurship and individuals have also been severely penalized during lockdowns. To deliver a message that only ‘essential’ or ‘key’ workers may go to work conveys a message that you are of no importance unless they say so. That is also the message of Communism.
Whoever would want a community to know that they have no father, no independent authority to look up to other than their leadership, we can look to China as an example who have recently shut down 48 state registered churches between 18 and 30 April.
According to Bitter Winter who are a religious liberty and human rights magazine, religious items have been stripped from churches in Yugan county and replaced with images of President Xi Jinping and Mao Zedong. The ongoing crackdown is part of a five year plan announced in 2018 to ‘reinterpret’ Christianity. Bitter Winter have reported hundreds of state sanctioned churches have been closed, pastors arrested and imprisoned and surveillance cameras installed.
It is also reported that hundreds of policemen were sent to demolish Buddhist temples.
In case the UK should think this could never happen here because we value our heritage too much, consider the ease we have given up our freedoms and the ease in which the recent recommendation to close churches became an order issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is only today, the 5th July, that churches have been allowed to open with a maximum capacity of 30 people and strictly no singing. Consider how there is some agreement taking place in the removal of statues and monuments.
St Peter’s Church!
A strong Christian Church would never allow Communism to reign, but an infiltration of the church by non believers who have been put in high places has enabled the church to become weak, compromising and subservient, and this has been the plan that Communism and a One World Religion has had all along, to destroy Christian values and moral principles upon which many western countries are built upon, in order to displace it with their own evil agenda.
The photograph I have taken is from the notice board of a church called St. Peters informing parishioners that The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are advising public worship should be suspended until further notice. The most significant memorial in this church, which visitors especially from the United States are drawn to, is that to Edward Winslow, born in St Peter’s parish in 1595. He was one of the Pilgrim Fathers who sailed on the Mayflower. The vestry built onto the church in 1973 is dedicated to his memory.
As much as possible we must talk about this without fear to other people and bring our focus back in line to what freedom is. Sing in the open and sing loud. Under God’s umbrella freedom can still be found, built upon the foundations of the commandments, and not the laws of man. They exist to provide good lives.
I believe people are waking up to the psychological manipulation which has been taking place upon them and many are turning back to God and praying. We look often to the USA where our founding fathers travelled to in an escape from persecution to our relatives who also love the freedom upon which the country was built.
God Bless all the people who have fought for freedom and God Bless our countries.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Shirley Edwardshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngShirley Edwards2020-07-07 09:32:462020-07-07 09:32:46UK Perspective on Covid 19 – Subliminal Programming or Propaganda – Where Do We Go From Here?
H.R. 5383, the “New Way Forward Act”, which has 44 cosponsors, would effectively eviscerate immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior of the United States.
It would all but eliminate detention for immigration purposes, and impose new burdens on our already overtaxed immigration courts.
It would place onerous restrictions on ICE officers and Border Patrol agents in making immigration arrests — including in desolate areas of the border in the middle of the night.
It would require those officers and agents to justify every arrest of an alien without a warrant before an immigration judge, straining to the point of elimination DHS’s limited immigration-enforcement resources.
It would create a “statute of limitations” of five years for the commencement of removal proceedings based on even the most serious criminal offenses.
It would limit the criminal grounds of removal so significantly that only the most extreme offenses would render criminal aliens removable, and would also expand the relief available to the few aliens who would still be removable on criminal grounds.
It would make the amendments to the criminal grounds of removal and relief retroactive, so that even criminal aliens who have been removed from the United States, but who would not have been removable had that law been in effect, could apply to have their cases reopened or reconsidered. Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals would have no discretion not to reopen or reconsider those cases.
It would require DHS to pay to fly those criminal aliens who have been removed and who would be eligible for reopening or reconsideration thereunder back to the United States — which would result in dangerous criminal aliens being returned at taxpayer expense back to this country to commit more crimes.
It would prevent state and local law enforcement from assisting ICE and CBP in immigration enforcement in any way, and bar the inclusion of immigration-related information into the NCIC database or its incorporated criminal history databases. This would essentially make every jurisdiction in the United States a “sanctuary jurisdiction”. As a result, ICE officers would have to risk their own safety and the safety of the community as a whole to arrest dangerous criminal aliens at their homes or in public places.
It would repeal the criminal grounds of illegal entry and reentry into the United States, encouraging fraud, enriching smugglers, traffickers, and criminal cartels, and endangering the national security and the community.
On December 10, 2019, Rep. Jesus Garcia (D-Ill.) introduced H.R. 5383, the “New Way Forward Act”, which now has 44 cosponsors.1 It is a roadmap for Democrats’ plans to hobble immigration enforcement if they ever regain control of the White House and Congress, introduced by representatives who apparently believe that the current immigration laws are too harsh on criminal aliens in the United States, that immigration enforcement in the interior is currently too effective, and that there are not enough criminals in this country already. Regrettably, I am not exaggerating.
Detention is a key tool for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its enforcement of the immigration laws, not just in the interior, but also in assisting U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in enforcing those laws at the border.
As civil-rights icon Barbara Jordan, then-chairwoman of President Clinton’s Commission on Immigration Reform, testified in February 1995: “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.”2 By this standard, the current immigration-enforcement effort is a failure, and a lack of detention space is a main cause of that failure.
In its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) report for FY 2019, ICE revealed that at the end of the fiscal year, there were 595,430 fugitive aliens in the United States; that is, aliens who have “failed to leave the United States based upon a final order of removal, deportation or exclusion, or who have failed to report to ICE after receiving notice to do so” — up more than 50,000 cases from just two years before.3 Those were aliens who had never been in custody or who had been released — either on parole, bond, or their own recognizance — who had received due process, were ordered removed, and who failed to leave.
Not that this should be a surprise. Aliens who enter the United States illegally, or who overstay their visas, do so to live and (generally) work in the United States, (generally) indefinitely. They literally have no incentive to leave the United States if they are not detained and are ordered removed.
As a bipartisan panel of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) found in an April 2019 report: “Even if the asylum hearing and appeals ultimately go against the migrant, he or she still has the practical option of simply remaining in the U.S. illegally, where the odds of being caught and removed remain very low.”4 How low? In FY 2019, the ICE ERO report stated that the agency had a non-detained docket of more than 3.2 million cases, and was detaining (at the end of FY 2019) 50,922 aliens, most (63 percent) of whom were recent apprehensions at the border.5 If you are an alien on ICE’s docket, your odds of being detained are just less than one in 63.
In contrast, due to the surge of aliens at the border in FY 2019, the agency only removed just over 143,000 aliens last year — 86 percent of whom had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges — down from 158,851 the year before. At that rate, it will take ICE more than four years to remove all of the alien absconders in the United States — assuming that every alien ordered subsequently removed during that period leaves voluntarily (which, as noted, they won’t).
H.R. 5383 would make ICE’s efforts to enforce the laws in the interior and at the border next to impossible by ending mandatory detention for terrorist and criminal aliens (more on that later), creating a “rebuttable presumption that the alien should be released from custody” (which places an impossible burden on ICE attorneys, who represent the government in bond proceedings), and requiring that the “least restrictive conditions” of detention and supervision be imposed on aliens (including criminal aliens) in removal proceedings and under removal orders.
Further, it requires immigration judges (IJs) to review those conditions “on a monthly basis”, imposing a significant burden on already strained immigration court dockets (the nation’s 466 IJs were handling 1,066,563 cases as of December 31, 2019 — 2,289 cases per IJ).6
That bill would also shorten the time that ICE may detain an alien under a final order from 90 days to 60 days,7 which would require the release of large numbers of aliens from so-called “recalcitrant countries”8 — those “that systematically refuse or delay the repatriation of their citizens.” In addition, H.R. 5383 would provide those aliens with a mechanism to seek release during even that shortened period (those aliens, and in particular aliens removable on terrorist and criminal grounds, are currently subject to mandatory detention).
Restrictions on Immigration Arrests
Not only would the bill add those restrictions to ICE’s detention of aliens, it would also impose significant burdens on that agency and CBP to simply arrest aliens.
Current law (logically) gives DHS officers significant latitude in questioning aliens or suspected aliens, and in arresting (without a warrant) aliens who are entering the United States illegally, as well as aliens who the officer believes are in this country illegally and who are likely to escape before the officer can obtain a warrant.9 The only restriction on this authority is that the alien must be presented “without unnecessary delay” to an officer for questioning as to that alien’s “right to enter or remain in” this country.
H.R. 5383 would place incredible impediments on both the authority of DHS officers to question aliens, and on those officers’ authority to arrest.
Specifically, under that bill, ICE officers could not interrogate any alien if that interrogation is “based on the person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, color, spoken language, or English proficiency.”
It has been my experience that ICE officers generally question suspected aliens based upon a “totality of the circumstances”, which may include some of the factors above (I am unaware of any arrest that has ever been premised in whole or in part on religion or sexual orientation), but also other, additional factors that would indicate that the individual is a removable alien.10 If you have ever been to the border, for example, race, ethnicity, color, and English proficiency in and of themselves would not suggest that an individual is a removable alien, but they may be if the individual is in the back of a trailer that fled from an interior checkpoint.11
Categorically removing these factors from that “totality of the circumstances” analysis would make the task facing ICE officers who suspect an individual of being a removable alien next to impossible, short of the alien blurting out that he or she is in such a status. The restrictions imposed by H.R. 5383 would give even removable aliens no shortage of avenues for escaping (metaphorically) removal by asserting that an “improper” factor was considered. ICE officers would spend all day in immigration court defending the few arrests that they are able to make at “probable cause” hearings — which are also mandated by the bill, within 48 hours of the alien’s arrest without warrant, as explained below.
If the impediments on ICE officers in the interior are burdensome, the ones on Border Patrol agents are downright bizarre and ill-informed.
Specifically, under the bill, those agents could only arrest aliens whom they see entering the United States illegally if: they have probable cause to believe that the alien is in this country in violation of law and “is likely to escape before” the agent can obtain an arrest warrant; if the agent “has reason to believe” that the alien “would knowingly and willfully fail to appear in immigration court” pursuant to a Notice to Appear (“NTA”, the charging document in removal proceedings); and if the alien is presented before an IJ within 48 hours of arrest “to determine whether there is probable cause as” required therein, “including probable cause to believe that” the alien “would have knowingly and willfully failed to appear” — a hearing at which the government would bear the burden of proof.
This provision shows an almost complete lack of understanding as to how the Border Patrol does its job. Aliens are often apprehended in remote portions of the border, far away from Border Patrol stations — making it next to impossible for agents to drive hours to obtain a warrant of arrest. In addition, it is difficult to imagine how an agent could make a determination in the middle of the night whether any given alien (who had entered illegally) would appear before an IJ.
The probable-cause hearing requirement, again, would pull a significant number of Border Patrol agents off of the line almost daily to travel to far-away immigration courts to explain why they made numerous and sundry arrests.
To explain: As of January 2019, CBP employed roughly 20,000 Border Patrol agents,12 most of whom are assigned to the Southwest border, which is about 1,954 miles long.13 Those agents work 50-hour shifts per week, meaning that at any given time (assuming there are 18,000 agents along the border with Mexico) there are approximately 5,357 agents at that border. If CBP had to pull hundreds of them off of the line at any given time, it would create a vacuum that would be exploited by smugglers and traffickers, who would move migrants, drugs, and contraband through the places where agents aren’t stationed.
Of course, immigration courts are not 24-hour-a-day affairs, so it is unclear how, exactly, an alien apprehended on a Friday could be presented before an IJ 48 hours later on Sunday (or Saturday, for that matter).
This provision would essentially require Border Patrol agents to issue NTAs to all aliens apprehended entering illegally in lieu of arresting those aliens. This would, in turn, encourage massive numbers of aliens to enter the United States illegally, overwhelming limited DHS resources even more.
It would also prevent Border Patrol from identifying wanted criminals, gang members, traffickers, and even terrorists in that flood of migrants over the border. Notably, the April report from the bipartisan HSAC panel (referenced above) specifically stated: “By far, the major ‘pull factor’ [driving family units to the Southwest border] is the current practice of releasing with a NTA most illegal migrants who bring a child with them.”14 The bill would exacerbate that problem exponentially, and expand this loophole to single adults entering illegally.
Statute of Limitations on Removal Proceedings for Criminal Aliens
The bill would also create a “statute of limitations” for removal proceedings, requiring that ICE place any alien charged with a criminal-based ground of removability into proceedings within five years of the alien becoming amenable to removal (usually, the date of conviction). Often, ICE is unable to locate aliens who have criminal convictions right away, or fails to realize that an individual with a conviction is an alien for several years.
This provision would give those aliens not a “get out of jail free card,” but rather a “remain in the United States unremovable” card. And, it would do so retroactively, so criminal aliens who were placed into removal proceedings more than five years after their convictions, and subsequently ordered removed, would no longer be removable — regardless of the severity of their criminal offenses.
And, as I will explain below, it would also allow those criminal aliens who have been removed to have their cases reopened and terminated, and to be returned to the United States at taxpayers’ expense.
Limitation on Criminal Removal Grounds
H.R. 5383 would also eviscerate the criminal grounds of inadmissibility15 and deportability under a provision specifically titled “Limit Criminal-System-to-Removal Pipeline” (suggesting that the authors do not want a “pipeline” between prisons and removal for dangerous criminal aliens).
It would eliminate removability for aliens convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), which are generally characterized as crimes of vileness, baseness, or depravity, as well as crimes that violate moral standards (malum in se, as we say in the law, “wrong in itself” by its very nature).16 Included on this list are crimes that involve fraud, bribery, sex-related offenses (including solicitation of prostitution and incest), willful infliction of injury to a spouse, theft, robbery, knowing possession of child pornography, and communication with a minor for immoral purposes — to name a few. Significantly, aliens convicted of these offenses would not only no longer be deportable if they were here, they would no longer be inadmissible to the United States if they are not.
In addition, the bill would eliminate removability for criminal violations relating to controlled substances other than drug-trafficking offenses (with a significant caveat relating to deportability based on a conviction for an aggravated felony, below), again meaning that applicants for admission would not be barred from entering the United States as a result of such convictions.
H.R. 5383 would also significantly narrow the definition of “aggravated felony” in section 101(a)(43) of the INA, a category of crimes that renders aliens in the United States deportable.17 That list includes murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, illicit trafficking in a controlled substance, illicit trafficking in firearms, crimes of violence, theft and burglary, demand for or receipt of ransom, child pornography, racketeer influenced corrupt organization offenses, peonage, slavery, trafficking in persons, gathering or transmitting national defense information, sabotage, offenses involving fraud or deceit in which the loss was $10,000 or more, alien smuggling, and attempts and conspiracies to commit such offenses (as well as many others — this list is not exhaustive).
Currently, an offense does not need to qualify as a “felony” under state or federal law to qualify as an aggravated felony for purposes of deportability. This recognizes the fact that “immigration” is a federal issue, and that a state’s characterization of an offense as a “misdemeanor” or a “felony” has no effect on how that offense should be treated for purposes of removability.
The bill would redefine the term “aggravated felony” for purposes of the INA as “a felony, for which a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years was imposed.” This is a bad amendment, for at least two reasons.
First, it excludes many offenses that would fall under the federal definition of “felony”, which includes any crime for which the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is a sentence of more than a year.18 Even if you don’t believe that crimes that are not “felonies” should not count as “aggravated felonies” for immigration purposes, crimes with punishments that would qualify as “felonies” under federal law certainly should.
Second, and worse, it would allow many aliens who are currently removable for significant criminal offenses to remain in the United States and commit additional crimes. As my colleague Jessica Vaughan19 noted in 2011 in summarizing a Government Accountability Office report on alien incarcerations, arrests, and costs: “The average incarcerated alien had seven arrests, and committed an average of 12 offenses.”20 Simply put, criminals commit crimes, and convicted criminals usually commit numerous ones.
While the aggravated felonies listed above are serious offenses, as a result of plea bargains or the misguided efforts of lenient sentencing judges, the sentences for those offenses can be relatively light. This is especially true in cases involving rape and sexual abuse of a minor, where prosecutors may attempt to protect the victim from having to testify by striking a deal with the defendant.
H.R. 5383 would shelter the criminals convicted of those offenses from removability, in essence allowing them to remain in the United States and prey again upon the community, unless they received a term of imprisonment of an arbitrary five years or more.
Restrictions on What Constitutes a “Conviction” for Immigration Purposes
Worse, that bill would significantly trim down the formal findings of criminal guilt that would qualify as a “conviction” for purposes of removability, as well as eligibility for immigration relief in section 101(a)(48) of the INA.21
It is important to note that criminal convictions have two consequences under immigration law. First, they can render an alien inadmissible or removable under sections 212(a)(2)22 and 237(a)(2)23 of the INA, respectively. Second, they can render a removable alien ineligible for relief from removal, such as for asylum (sections 208(b)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) and sections 208(b)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) of the INA),24 cancellation of removal for permanent residents (“42A cancellation”, section 240A(a)(3) of the INA25), and cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents (“42B cancellation”, section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the INA).
H.R. 5383 would amend the definition of “conviction” for purposes of the INA to exclude:
An adjudication or judgment of guilt that has been dismissed, expunged, sealed, deferred, annulled, invalidated, withheld, or vacated, or where a court has issued a judicial recommendation against removal [JRAD], or an order of probation without entry of judgment or any similar disposition.
This amendment would allow a criminal who has been convicted, and sentenced, and who has served time for an offense to avoid removal by going to a sympathetic judge (or overworked prosecutor) to have that conviction dismissed, expunged, sealed, annulled, invalidated, or vacated, without consideration of whether the criminal actually committed that offense.
As Criminal Defense Lawyer explains:
Many states allow you to expunge, seal or otherwise “hide” or “destroy” your criminal record. Generally, if a criminal record is expunged or sealed, it’s as though the crime never occurred and you can legally say (to a potential employer, for example) that you were never charged or convicted of a crime.26
Or, a “potential IJ”. Therefore, an alien who has committed a serious criminal offense can avoid the immigration consequences of his or her actions by going to court, in instances well after the fact, to “hide” or “destroy” their criminal record for immigration purposes.
With respect to JRADs, as my colleague Dan Cadman has explained, while they previously existed in immigration law, Congress expressly repealed that procedure 30 years ago:
Before repeal, a JRAD was binding on immigration authorities, including immigration judges, although it could not be used for certain offenses or where the sentence exceeded a year of imprisonment.
Next let’s note that JRADs were primarily used in cases involving resident aliens in which mitigating factors existed; the JRAD acted to bar deportation and thus left the alien’s legal ability to remain in the United States intact.27
The JRAD proposed in H.R. 5383 would apply to all aliens, not just lawful permanent resident aliens, and would include foreign nationals who have never been to the United States seeking admission. And Congress repealed that relief for good reason, as I have previously stated: “Elimination of that limited authority made it clear that state-court judges had no power to affect the immigration consequences of criminal convictions.”28 (Emphasis added.)
H.R. 5383 would in fact give state-court judges almost unbridled discretion to interfere in the exclusively federal domain of immigration. Further, it would almost definitely lead to disparate and subjective outcomes, as some jurisdictions (and individual judges) would be more lenient and others stricter were it to come to applying these new powers, if they were conveyed by Congress.
Worse (and yes, it gets much, much worse), the bill would repeal a subparagraph in section 101(a)(48) of the INA that explicitly states that:
Any reference to a term of imprisonment or a sentence with respect to an offense is deemed to include the period of incarceration or confinement ordered by a court of law regardless of any suspension of the imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part.29
Instead, under that provision as amended by H.R. 5383, the phrase “term of imprisonment or sentence” for purposes of the INA would include only the “period of incarceration ordered by a court of law”, excluding “confinement” (logically referencing “house arrest”) as well as “any suspension or imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part”. The number of criminal aliens who would escape removal under this amendment is incalculable, but that is only the beginning.
Retroactivity of Amendments
That is because the bill would make these amendments explicitly retroactive, applicable not only to convictions and sentences entered before the date of enactment, but also to “admissions and conduct” occurring before the date of enactment. It would provide a map for criminals seeking through the plea process to avoid removal and reoffend, as often as they wanted, until they ran afoul of what would be left of the criminal grounds of removal. And allow them to reopen cases that had long been closed, even if they had already been deported.
Expansion of the Availability of Relief for Criminal Aliens
And even then criminal aliens could still escape removal, because H.R. 5383 explicitly allows IJs to “grant any relief or deferral of removal … to any individual who is otherwise eligible for such relief but for a prior criminal conviction” so long as the respondent can convince the IJ that “such an exercise of discretion” is “appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.”
That means that you could be sentenced to (and serve) 20 years’ incarceration for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor (or any other aggravated felony), reapply for adjustment of status under section 245 of the INA, show that your removal would disrupt the family unity you share with your sponsoring spouse, and be given a brand new green card.30
Or you could enter the United States illegally, be locked up for 20 years for drug trafficking, and be granted 42B cancellation under section 240A(b) of the INA by showing that such relief is “appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes” (whatever that means).31
I will note that 42B relief requires the applicant show that he or she has been a person of “good moral character” for 10 years before applying, and that under section 101(f)(8) of the INA, an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony is barred from being found to be “a person of good moral character”.32 The provision in question (section 401(a) in H.R. 5383), however, states that it applies “[n]othwithstanding any other provision of law,” vitiating this bar.33
And section 401(d) in that bill strikes section 240A(d)(1)34 of the INA, which stops the clock on the accrual of residence and physical presence (periods of which are required for 42A and 42B cancellation of removal) when the alien commits a criminal offense that would render the alien inadmissible under the criminal grounds in sections 212(a)(2)35 and 237(a)(2) of the INA. 36
If you conclude from all that I have explained thus far that the drafters of H.R. 5383 have done everything that they can to allow every criminal alien to remain in the United States short of simply eliminating the criminal grounds of removability, you would not be far off. But then they go one step further.
Return of Criminal Aliens to the United States — at Government Expense
Under Title VII of that bill, captioned glowingly “Right to Come Home”, the drafters require IJs and the Board of Immigration Appeals to grant any motion to reopen or reconsider filed by any foreign national who was “ordered removed, deported, or excluded”, or who left under a grant of voluntary departure, on or after April 24, 1996 (the date of enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)),37 who would not have been inadmissible, excludable, or deportable under the eviscerated criminal grounds in H.R. 5383, or who would have been eligible to apply for relief under the senseless amendments made therein.
And DHS (that means you, the taxpayer) has to pay to fly all of those previously deported, excluded, and removed aliens who are eligible for reopening and reconsideration of their cases (not simply those who have been granted reopening and reconsideration) “at Government expense” (emphasis added) back to the United States for their immigration proceedings, and must admit or parole them all.
I almost don’t believe what I just typed myself, so I have to insert section 701(d) of H.R. 5383, so you and I can see for ourselves:
TRANSPORTATION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide transportation for aliens eligible for reopening or reconsideration of their proceedings under this section, at Government expense, to return to the United States for further immigration proceedings and shall admit or parole the alien into the United States.
And notwithstanding the fact that section 701(a)(1) of the bill would mandate reopening or reconsideration of the removal proceedings of all those criminal aliens who are living abroad who would be newly free to return to the United States, section 701(f) grants those criminals aliens the ability to seek judicial review of any denials of such motions. Meaning that the aliens who were erroneously flown back to the United States at government expense to apply for reopening or reconsideration because they were not actually eligible could remain even longer.
Restrictions on State and Local Assistance in Immigration Enforcement
Not that there would be any resources to arrest and remove them again, anyway. In addition to the ridiculous restrictions on immigration arrests by ICE and CBP described above, H.R. 5383 would also end the successful 287(g) program, under which immigration authority can be delegated to specially trained state and local law-enforcement officers.38
Not satisfied to stop there, the drafters would also bar civil immigration warrants from being entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database (and its “incorporated criminal history databases”); and bar federal, state, and local law-enforcement officials from entering information relating “to an alien’s immigration status, the existence of a prior removal, deportation, or voluntary departure order against an alien, or any allegations of civil violations of the immigration laws” into those databases. Such information already in those databases would have to be removed within 90 days of the enactment of H.R. 5383, though Lord knows how.
At this point, you really have to wonder whose side the sponsors and drafters of that bill are on. Not to be outdone, however, they also prohibit state and local employees and officials from “performing the function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, transport, or detention of aliens in the United States or otherwise assist in the performance of such functions.” (Emphasis added.)
This means that unless ICE officers are stationed outside the jailhouse door when the alleged alien rapists of an 11-year-old girl are released, those officers will just have to go and find them somewhere else, likely in a spot where someone (the alien, the ICE agent, an intervener, or an innocent member of the public) could get hurt.39 Under H.R. 5383, every state, county, and city will be Montgomery County, Md., and New York City.
The Bill Eliminates the Criminal Penalties for Illegal Entry and Reentry
Finally, the bill repeals sections 275 and 276 of the INA.40
Section 275 of the INA makes it a misdemeanor, subject to imprisonment for up to six months and a fine, for an alien to enter or attempt to enter the United States illegally or through fraud.41 For any alien who subsequently illegally reenters the United States, that section provides for a felony sentence of two years’ imprisonment and a fine. That section also criminalizes marriage fraud.
Section 276 of the INA makes it a felony, subject to imprisonment for up to two years and a fine, for an alien to reenter the United States illegally after being ordered excluded, deported, or removed, with higher penalties (up to 20 years) for aliens removed after being convicted of aggravated felonies, and up to 10 years for aliens removed on terrorist grounds, as well as those removed on other criminal grounds.42
Eliminating these criminal provisions would remove the (remaining) teeth from border enforcement, because the threat of criminal punishment is a significant deterrent to illegal entry (as I have previously explained), especially for aliens who have been removed on criminal grounds or who pose a danger to the national security.43
In addition to the migrants who have entered illegally themselves, the major beneficiaries of the repeal of these provisions are the smugglers and traffickers who prey upon those migrants in making the life-threatening trip illegally to the border, and the criminal cartels who benefit from their passage over the border into the United States.44
H.R. 5383 Is a Roadmap for Immigration Enforcement under Democratic Control
H.R. 5383 is not a serious proposal — not yet, at least. Few members of Congress or senators facing reelection would want to run the inevitable risk that a criminal protected (or worse, returned at government expense) thereunder would commit a crime so heinous and shocking to the conscience that even a media otherwise ignorant, docile, and uninterested as it relates to alien crime could ignore it.
That said, however, the bill pulls the curtain back on where Democrats want to go on immigration, if they get the power to do so. Why do I say that? The first cosponsor is Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the vice-chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship at the House Judiciary Committee (the subcommittee to which that bill has been referred). She is no backbencher who has no idea of what this bill would do. She is leadership on that powerful committee.
Look, you may think that the immigration laws are too harsh on criminal aliens (86 percent of all of the aliens removed by ICE in FY 2019 either had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, as I noted above45). And you may even think that the criminal justice system in the United States itself is too harsh. Given the high recidivism rate for criminals, however, the idea of flying criminals back to the United States is foolhardy, to put it mildly.
Perhaps some in this country might like the frisson of dodging even more dangerous criminals than we already have on a daily basis. Most Americans (citizens and legal immigrants alike) want their communities safe and orderly, though.
The fact is that, however, given the large number of sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States, and given that sanctuary laws only protect criminal aliens, the ideas in H.R. 5383 (other than the paid return of deported criminals) are in effect today — H.R. 5383 simply puts a face, and legal sanction, on them all.46
And bills don’t write themselves. Drafters intend them to become law. Given the opportunity, the sponsor and 44 cosponsors of H.R. 5383 (and likely several others who haven’t taken the step of cosponsorship yet) will make it the law.
Then, we will all have to live with the consequences.
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985. It is the nation’s only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2020-07-07 07:43:012020-07-07 07:50:04VIDEO: Democrats introduce ‘New Way Forward Act’ the Most Anti-American legislation in U.S. History
“I’m sorry I was born white and privileged. It disgusts me. And I feel so much shame.”
So tweeted virtue-signaling Hollywood actress Rosanna Arquette, whose three-sentence message had one purpose: to help the political party she supports mainstream the absurd idea that white people should be ashamed of their skin color and, by extension, ashamed of their predominately white country.
Hollywood stars are not the only ones pushing white privilege ideology. Marxist teachers and professors in our universities and public schools have systematically burdened millions of young white minds with guilt over the accident of their birth, a relentless brainwashing that has yielded profound changes in the political views of students of conservative parents.
Last month, Stephanie Regan, the 23-year-old daughter of a conservative Republican running for the Michigan state House, knifed her own father in the back with tweets intended to torpedo his campaign, as though he’s some kind of monster: ‘pls for the love of god don’t vote for my dad.”
Ms. Regan’s conservative Christian father, Robert Regan, told The Hill that the two have conflicting views about social issues, including abortion and the alleged existence of white privilege. The Republican candidate attributed his daughter’s rejection of values she’d been taught as a child to indoctrination by Marxist professors at the college she attended. Robert Regan is by no means the only conservative parent with a child who was brainwashed in college with the utopian promises of Marxism.
The U.S. education system has been thoroughly infiltrated by Marxist faculty and administrators hell-bent on doing their part to help dismantle America’s two-party constitutional democracy in favor of single-party socialist rule. One of their most potent weapons in turning politically malleable young minds against their parents — and their country — is white privilege indoctrination.
Most parents have no idea of what’s being taught in public schools
In many of our public schools, impressionable young children are no longer being taught to be proud of being Americans. Their school teachers, who traditionally embody socially approved values, are teaching them to be ashamed of being Americans. Spreading out from the schools that teach our teachers, this ideology is being inculcated into our nation’s K-12 schools, and is anti-American in the most profound meaning of the term. It is a movement that is teaching future generations that capitalism and traditional American values are intrinsically evil. Critical pedagogy and its advocates, in their vehement antipathy towards capitalism, private property and traditional American values amount to a fifth subversive column, no less dangerous to freedom than communism. Its advocates are seeking to radically transform our society by covertly indoctrinating the young through an essentially clandestine and subversive transformation of our culture.
The kind of teachers to whom Britain referred have two things in common: (1) they all have turned to the side of the hammer and sickle, and (2) they all are Democrats. An example of such subversive educators can be seen in the short video below, which shows two unionized teachers caught on camera discussing how to insert communist doctrine into the classroom. Wearing a “Tax the Rich” shirt, Sarah Knopp, a Los Angeles high school teacher and teacher union activist who contributes to The Socialist Review, and Megan Behrent, a New York City public school teacher affiliated with the International Socialist Organization, participated in an off-campus panel discussion about how to slip Marxist propaganda into the minds of children.
children.
In public schools across America, activist Democrat teachers are pushing a failed and oppressive ideology on captive young minds, often with the tacit approval of their superiors. You can bet everything you own that activist Democrats in academia are also infecting their students with white privilege guilt.
As a major part of the Democratic Party’s election strategy, white privilege ideology is taught to thousands of teachers and administrators at annual white privilege conferences. Click on the video below to see Part 1 of an undercover investigation by EAG News that shows how Democrat educators are taught to inculcate in schoolchildren as young as pre-K a love of communism, and a deep-rooted contempt for capitalism, Christianity, and the U.S. Constitution.
Click here to see Part 3 of EAG’s undercover investigation, and here to see a report that the same Democrat-run school districts that have failed for decades on end to adequately educate disadvantaged black children are spending millions on white privilege training for teachers and administrators.
Black professor exposes “white privilege” for what it is: a Big Lie
One of the Third Reich’s most devastating propaganda techniques is known as the “Big Lie”: If you’re going to lie, make it a Big Lie, keep repeating it, and people will believe it. That’s what Democrats do with white privilege ideology — relentlessly repeat it until people believe it. Writing in his weekly column “Our Broken Moral Compasses,” black American professor Dr. Walter Williams exposed white privilege for the Big Lie it is:
Then there’s white privilege. Colleges have courses and seminars on “whiteness.” One college even has a course titled “Abolition of Whiteness.” According to academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that nonwhites do not. They earn higher incomes and reside in better housing, and their children go to better schools and achieve more. Based on those socio-economic statistics, Japanese-Americans have more white privilege than white people. And, on a personal note, my daughter has experienced more white privilege than probably more than 95 percent of white Americans. She’s attended private schools, had ballet and music lessons, traveled the world, and lived in upper-income communities. Leftists should get rid of the concept of white privilege and just call it achievement.
Dr. Williams has a point. In addition to his daughter, “white privilege” hasn’t held back Oprah, Jay-Z & Beyoncé, Condoleezza Rice, Kamala Harris, Maxine Waters, Morgan Freeman, Colin Kaepernick, Tiger Woods, LeBron James, or the billionaire founder of Black Entertainment TV. It hasn’t held back millions of industrious black people who have earned a share of the American dream. And it certainly hasn’t held back Barack Obama, who’s in line to become America’s first billionaire former president.
Due to our country’s deplorable history of slavery and segregation, there was a time in America when the deck was stacked against its black citizens. But that is no longer the case. Yes, it took longer than it should have, but slavery and segregation were ended long ago, and the Voting Rights Act was enacted way back in 1965. It is beyond dispute that a black child born in America today has the exact same constitutional rights as a white child.
Despite horrible injustices of the past, no country in history has done more than this country to correct wrongs once committed against an oppressed minority of its own citizens. Democrats know that, but acknowledging it would undercut their most poisonous Big Lie: that even after all these years, America is still a racist hellhole, as it most definitely was when Knight Riders in white robes and white hoods served as the violent enforcement arm of Democrat governors, mayors, and police chiefs.
Click below to learn the inconvenient truth about the party that invented “white privilege” as a tool to turn school children against their country.
A preposterous lawsuit demanding cops be banned from using tear gas to disperse lawless protestors who block city streets and interfere with traffic has been struck down by a judge who ruled this week that the restriction “unnecessarily burdens the police and puts them and the public at risk.” The case was filed in Virginia by a leftist civil rights group that claims the city of Richmond and its police department as well as the state police violated the Constitutional rights of law-breaking protestors by using tear gas and other crowd control tactics during a disruptive Black Lives Matter demonstration outside Richmond City Hall last week. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Virginia Student Power Network, asks the court to broadly ban the use of “chemical munitions, irritants, explosives, stun weapons, and physical-impact weapons.”
About 150 people participated in the protest which was supposed to include an overnight sit-in outside Richmond City Hall to address police violence and community advocacy, according to a local news report. Protestors also “set up an encampment, blocked the city streets, and interfered with traffic,” court documents show. After midnight police determined that it was an unlawful assembly because “conditions of activity such as sit-ins, sit-downs, blocking traffic, blocking entrances or exits of buildings that impact public safety or infrastructure.” Officers announced “multiple times” via megaphone that the blockade was an unlawful assembly and proceeded to disperse the unruly crowd by firing tear gas, flash bangs and rubber bullets. Around 12 people were arrested. Following George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, a number of violent protests have taken place in Virginia’s capital city of Richmond. Mayor Levar Stoney, who apologized for police firing tear gas on Black Lives Matter protestors, has recognized that cops have been “hit with bricks, they’ve been hit with cinder blocks, stones and urine and other caustic material.” Nevertheless, Stoney has marched with the anti-police mob to demonstrate his solidarity.
In the complaint against the city and police, protestors allege a violation of right to assemble, violation of right to freedom of speech, and violation of state code in declaring an unlawful assembly. The leftist activists asked the court to declare that police have been operating unlawfully and to issue an order prohibiting officers from engaging in activities that supposedly violate their Constitutional rights. Among them, according to the complaint, is banning the use of tear gas. “Since the tragic murder of George Floyd and the protests against police violence that have followed, state and local police operating in Richmond have shown a pattern of violence toward protesters who speak out against systemic and anti-Black racism,” said Eden Heilman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Virginia, which filed the lawsuit. “When these young people tried to educate their community about racism in Richmond and how to dismantle it, police stormed in and turned their positive space into a war zone.”
The ACLU lawyer conveniently fails to mention the young people’s illegal behavior, which the court found “provides a legal basis for a declaration of unlawful assembly” by police. In her ruling, Richmond City Circuit Judge Beverly W. Snukals also denies the request for an injunction broadly blocking the use of tear gas, writing that “plaintiffs have not established that harm is certain or of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for such equitable relief.” The ruling continues: “Placing these restrictions on defendants in the form of a preliminary injunction unnecessarily burdens the police and puts them and the public at risk.” The ACLU blasted the decision, accusing the court of allowing police to use tear gas and “other tools of war” against events that police declare to be unlawful assemblies without merit. “We will continue to fight in court to bring justice to people who are speaking out against systemic, anti-Black racism by continuing to pursue this lawsuit on behalf of the Virginia Student Power Network and individual protestors,” the group declares in a statement posted on its website. The ACLU also writes that now is the time to “divest from police and reinvest in solution-oriented community programs.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2020-07-07 06:24:272020-07-07 06:27:22Leftist Effort to Ban Cops from Using Tear Gas Against Lawless Protesters Crushed by Court
