One hundred eleven miles of new or replacement wall is either being built or is in progress on the southern border after Trump’s first two years in office, an administration official tells The Daily Caller.
All told, the administration has secured funding for approximately 445 miles of the total 722 miles desired by the Trump administration, a Caller analysis finds. The analysis holds only if all national emergency and executive action funding is upheld in court challenges.
The administration official stressed that this figure constitutes only 18-foot bollard wall fencing or 32-foot levee wall fencing, which is the barrier that Trump has emphasized as necessary.
The wall accounting begins in Fiscal Year 2017 in which $341 million was obligated for replacement wall in California, New Mexico, and Texas. This money funds construction for 40 miles of new or replacement wall of which 37 miles is completed or in progress.
$1.375 billion was then appropriated in 2018 to build upwards of 82 miles of new or replacement border wall. The administration official noted that approximately 74 miles of new or replacement wall has been completed or is in progress with these dollars. This particular wall was built or replaced in the Rio Grande Valley Sector on the border in South Texas and other locations.
Fiscal Year 2019 saw a major fight between Trump and Congress over border wall funding, with the administration demanding $5.7 billion and Democrats offering up no more than $1.375 billion, not to be used for a wall. Ultimately, after a nearly 35-day partial government shutdown and three weeks of negotiation, Trump accepted $1.375 billion in congressionally appropriated funding and declared a national emergency at the southern border.
Trump’s national emergency declaration and other executive action allowed him to tap $600 million from the Treasury asset forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion of drug enforcement money, and $3.6 billion under his authority as commander in chief.
The national emergency declaration was quickly challenged in court by 16 states, organized by the State of California and filed in the Federal District Court in San Francisco, which appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Officials could not provide a complete estimate of the wall that will be built with the 2019 funds, though they noted that it costs approximately $25 million per mile, putting an estimate at 323 miles of additional border wall. The administration official cautioned that wall funding costs can vary because of terrain but noted that Trump’s actions lack the restrictions of previous appropriations to build wall in much needed areas, like the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
White House Correspondent. Amber Athey contributed to this report.
RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Will Sign Border Bill, Declare National Emergency
The Daily Caller is taking the rare step of publishing this anonymous op-ed at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose career would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
As one of the senior officials working without a paycheck, a few words of advice for the president’s next move at shuttered government agencies: lock the doors, sell the furniture, and cut them down.
Federal employees are starting to feel the strain of the shutdown. I am one of them. But for the sake of our nation, I hope it lasts a very long time, till the government is changed and can never return to its previous form.
The lapse in appropriations is more than a battle over a wall. It is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good.
On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country. I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else. But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results. If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t.
Why would they? We can’t fire them. They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position — some do this in the same position for more than a decade.
They do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value. That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands — administering, refining, following and collaborating on process. “Process is your friend” is what delusional civil servants tell themselves. Even senior officials must gain approval from every rank across their department, other agencies and work units for basic administrative chores.
Process is what we serve, process keeps us safe, process is our core value. It takes a lot of people to maintain the process. Process provides jobs. In fact, there are process experts and certified process managers who protect the process. Then there are the 5 percent with moxy (career managers). At any given time they can change, clarify or add to the process — even to distort or block policy counsel for the president.
Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.
Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily.
When the agency is full, employees held liable for poor performance respond with threats, lawsuits, complaints and process in at least a dozen offices, taking years of mounting paperwork with no fear of accountability, extending their careers, while no real work is done. Do we succumb to such extortion? Yes. We pay them settlements, we waive bad reviews, and we promote them.
Many government agencies have adopted the position that more complaints are good because it shows inclusion in, you guessed it, the process. When complaints come, it is cheaper to pay them off than to hold public servants accountable. The result: People accused of serious offenses are not charged, and self-proclaimed victims are paid by you, the American taxpayer.
The message to federal supervisors is clear. Maintain the status quo, or face allegations. Many federal employees truly believe that doing tasks more efficiently and cutting out waste, by closing troubled programs instead of expanding them, “is morally wrong,” as one cried to me.
I get it. These are their pets. It is tough to put them down and let go, and many resist. This phenomenon was best summed up by a colleague who said, “The goal in government is to do nothing. If you try to get things done, that’s when you will run into trouble.”
But President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them. Sure, we empathize with families making tough financial decisions, like mine, and just like private citizens who have to find other work and bring competitive value every day, while paying more than a third of their salary in federal taxes.
President Trump has created more jobs in the private sector than the furloughed federal workforce. Now that we are shut down, not only are we identifying and eliminating much of the sabotage and waste, but we are finally working on the president’s agenda.
President Trump does not need Congress to address the border emergency, and yes, it is an emergency. Billions upon billions of hard-earned tax dollars are still being dumped into foreign aid programs every year that do nothing for America’s interest or national security. The president does not need congressional funding to deconstruct abusive agencies who work against his agenda. This is a chance to effect real change, and his leverage grows stronger every day the shutdown lasts.
The president should add to his demands, including a vote on all of his political nominees in the Senate. Send the career appointees back. Many are in the 5 percent of saboteurs and resistance leaders.
A word of caution: To be a victory, this shutdown must be different than those of the past and should achieve lasting disruption with two major changes, or it will hurt the president.
The first thing we need out of this is better security, particularly at the southern border. Our founders envisioned a free market night watchman state, not the bungled bloated bureaucracy our government has become. But we have to keep the uniformed officers paid, which is an emergency. Ideally, continue a resolution to pay the essential employees only, if they are truly working on national security. Furloughed employees should find other work, never return and not be paid.
Secondly, we need savings for taxpayers. If this fight is merely rhetorical bickering with Nancy Pelosi, we all lose, especially the president. But if it proves that government is better when smaller, focusing only on essential functions that serve Americans, then President Trump will achieve something great that Reagan was only bold enough to dream.
The president’s instincts are right. Most Americans will not miss non-essential government functions. A referendum to end government plunder must happen. Wasteful government agencies are fighting for relevance but they will lose. Now is the time to deliver historic change by cutting them down forever.
The author is a senior official in the Trump administration.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.
As 2018 comes to a close, it’s time to review the year’s worst cases of media misquotes, misleading narratives, major corrections and straight-up fake news.
While last year’s fake reporting largely occurred during the media’s relentless pursuit to prove Russian collusion, this year’s list is much more varied. However, some themes emerged: stories about then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the U.S. border were routinely flagged for misinformation.
Without further ado, here is the list of 2018’s worst examples of fake news:
1. WAPO BLAMES BORDER PATROL FOR DEATH OF 7-YEAR-OLD MIGRANT
The Washington Post published a story in December focusing on a 7-year-old migrant child from Guatemala who died in border patrol custody.
Despite WaPo’s misleading headline suggesting border patrol was to blame for the girl’s death, the full timeline of events and statements from the girl’s father praising border agents revealed a different story.
2. CNN AND THE HILL SPREAD RETRACTED SEXUAL ASSAULT CLAIM AGAINST KAVANAUGH
CNN and The Hill both reported on a sexual assault claim against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in late September without ever mentioning that the claim had been quickly retracted.
Jeffrey Catalan apologized for making a “mistake” in leveling the false claim against Kavanaugh, but CNN and The Hill’s initial reports on the claim failed to note the retraction. The Hill later retracted a tweet bolstering the claim and CNN updated its misleading report.
3. BOSTON GLOBE CORRECTS LIZ WARREN STORY — MAKES HER LESS NATIVE AMERICAN
Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren released a DNA test in October seeking to prove her repeated claims that she has Native American ancestry.
The Boston Globe initially reported on the DNA test by explaining that Warren was somewhere between 1/32 and 1/512 Native American. However, the paper eventually issued two corrections that damaged Warren’s ancestral claims even further.
“The generational range based on the ancestor that the report identified suggests she’s between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American,” The Globe admitted.
4. NYT ACCUSES NIKKI HALEY OF PURCHASING EXPENSIVE CURTAINS
The New York Times initially tied U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley to expensive curtains hanging in the ambassador’s apartment in New York, writing, “Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.”
However, NYT’s own article later admitted that the curtains were approved in 2016 and that Haley had no say in the matter.
5. MEDIA STILL BLAMING REPUBLICANS FOR STEELE DOSSIER
CNN’s Jim Sciutto, MSNBC’s Katy Tur, and MSNBC’s Ari Melber were all responsible for falsely claiming that Never-Trump Republicans were responsible for initial funding of the salacious Steele dossier.
Washington Free Beacon founder Paul Singer did pay Fusion GPS for standard opposition research, however, he stopped paying Fusion GPS well before they contracted Christopher Steele to create the dossier. That research was paid for solely by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
This falsehood has been shared so many times that even former FBI director James Comeyhas repeated it.
6. CNN ANALYST PUBLISHES DUBIOUS REPORT ON ADDITIONAL KAVANAUGH ALLEGATIONS
CNN political analyst and Sentinel editor Brian Karem published a report in September claiming that “Montgomery County investigators” were looking into an additional allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Local police disputed that they were investigating any claims, and Karem later updated his reporting to indicate that his sources were not police, but rather random “investigators in Montgomery County.”
7. CNN ACCUSES TED CRUZ OF BEING AFRAID TO APPEAR ON THEIR NETWORK
CNN accused Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz of being “scared” to come on their programs in the wake of the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
Sen. Ted Cruz blasted CNN for the falsehood, explaining on Twitter that he had done a 15-minute interview on the network the day prior.
“CNN has aired NONE of it,” Cruz complained. “Why not air the (entire) interview?
8. CNN SPREADS FALSE STATISTIC ON SCHOOL SHOOTING
After a May school shooting in Texas, CNN anchor Jim Sciutto and political correspondent Sara Murray both claimed that there had already been 22 school shootings in 2018.
CNN’s list of “school shootings” includes accidental firearm discharges, events that don’t involve any students, and domestic disputes — hardly the incidents that most people consider to be a school shooting.
9. NBC SAT ON INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTED KAVANAUGH ALLEGATIONS
While NBC’s story is not incorrect, its choice to sit on evidence that contradicted a serious sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh earned them a spot on this list.
Celebrity porn lawyer Michael Avenatti claimed he knew a second woman who could back up gang rape allegations made against Kavanaugh by his client, Julie Swetnick.
That second woman actually contradicted the allegations in a phone interview with NBC News on September 30. Mysteriously, NBC chose not to publish this information until weeks later and after Kavanaugh had already been confirmed to the Supreme Court.
10. MCCLATCHY CLAIMS MUELLER HAS EVIDENCE THAT CORROBORATES PIECE OF DOSSIER
McClatchy reported in April that special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen had been in Prague in the summer of 2016. The report appeared to corroborate a key part of the largely unverified Steele dossier.
But no other news outlets came forward to confirm McClatchy’s reporting and a spokesperson for Mueller’s team hinted to The Daily Caller News Foundation that the report may be false.
Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, emphatically denied in December that Cohen had ever been in Prague as the dossier alleges.
11. JIM ACOSTA SAID ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WOULDN’T CLIMB BORDER
CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta got into an ugly, public battle with President Donald Trump over immigration in November. During the testy exchange, Acosta claimed that illegal immigrants would “not be” trying to climb over the U.S.-Mexico border wall.
Unfortunately for Acosta, images a week later revealed that immigrants were doing exactlywhat he claimed they wouldn’t.
12. WAPO RAN KAVANAUGH STORY WITH KNOWINGLY FALSE INFORMATION
The Washington Post ran a story in October suggesting that Georgetown Preparatory School was hiring a new employee to deal with fallout from the Kavanaugh hearings.
The author of the report was informed by a spokesperson for Georgetown Prep that the new position was actually listed well before the Kavanaugh hearings. Somehow, that information didn’t make it into the report and WaPo had to issue a correction.
“This was a completely unintentional error-I read right over the date in haste. Story was corrected and correction is noted. Have a great weekend, all!” reporter Emily Heil wrote in response to backlash.
13. ANDREA MITCHELL SAYS DISGRACED FL ELECTION OFFICIAL IS A REPUBLICAN
Allegations of voter fraud and electoral misconduct in Florida during the 2018 midterms brought Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes into the spotlight.
Snipes, a Democrat, had been accused of misconduct in the past and was slammed again for violating Florida election law.
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell bafflingly said on air that Snipes is a Republican and “hardly a Democratic official, or someone doing the bidding of the Democratic candidates there.”
14. WAPO FORCED TO CORRECT NIKKI HALEY MISQUOTE
The Washington Post had to issue a correction after falsely attributing a quote about poverty to U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley.
After multiple requests by Haley for WaPo to issue a correction, the paper admitted that the quote in question was actually said by The U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations and International Organizations in Geneva.
15. CHRIS CUOMO SHARES FALSE STORY ABOUT AR-15 PURCHASE
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo spread a false story claiming that a 20-year-old student was able to purchase an AR-15 rifle without going through a background check.
The story itself admitted that the student never actually finished filling out paperwork — which would trigger the background check — nor did he purchase the gun.
Cuomo doubled down on sharing the story, insisting that the “point” he was trying to make still stood.
16. MEDIA CLAIMS TRUMP CALLED THE FBI A ‘CANCER’
President Donald Trump referred to corruption and bias within the FBI, particularly related to the Russia probe, as a “cancer” during a September interview with The Hill.
The media repeatedly misquoted the president and claimed he called the FBI itself “cancer,” despite clarification from the two people who interviewed him.
17. RACHEL MADDOW ACCUSES WH OF EDITING PUTIN TAPE
MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow opened a show in July by insisting that the Trump administration edited a tape of the president’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 16 in Helsinki.
The Washington Post’s Phillip Bump pointed out that the error was made by reporters too and was due to a change “between the feed from the reporters and the feed from the translator.”
18. CNN’S TRUMP TOWER STORY OBLITERATED BY LANNY DAVIS
CNN reported in July that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that the president had knowledge in advance of a Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians.
But Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said in August that CNN’s reporting got “mixed up” and that Cohen had no information related to the Trump Tower meeting. Cohen said the same to Congress on two separate occasions.
CNN doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on its reporting, despite a series of issues with the report.
19. NBC’S BRIAN WILLIAMS BUNGLES HIT PIECE ABOUT TRUMP AND DOGS
MSNBC anchor Brian Williams — also a noted survivor of a helicopter attack during the Iraq war — thought he exposed the president for being a dog-hater in an August segment.
Williams claimed his team “launched an extensive web search” and only found one photo of President Donald Trump with a dog.
The Daily Caller revealed, with the help of a quick Google search, multiple photos of the president holding dogs.
20. WAPO CLAIMS MCSALLY ACCUSES OPPONENT OF TREASON
The Washington Post reported during the 2018 midterm elections that Republican Arizona Senate candidate Martha McSally accused her Democratic opponent, Kyrsten Sinema, of treason.
A transcript of McSally’s comments reveals that she was actually knocking Sinema for excusing the treasonous actions of others.
“You said you had no problem with [Americans joining the Taliban],” McSally said. “Kyrsten, I want to ask right now whether you’re going to apologize to the veterans and me for saying it’s okay to commit treason?”
21. NPR: DONALD TRUMP JR. COMMITTED PERJURY
NPR published a report in November insisting that Donald Trump Jr. lied to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow because his statements conflicted with those of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
However, NPR failed to realize that the piece of Trump Jr.’s testimony they quoted was about a different project.
“Trump Jr.’s statements about work on a Trump Tower Moscow that ended in 2014 referred to negotiations with Aras Agalarov,” The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Chuck Ross explained. “Felix Sater, a businessman with links to Cohen and Russian officials, tried to make a Trump Tower Moscow happen in 2015.”
22. NBC NEWS MISQUOTES SEN. CASSIDY, CREATES FALSE ANTI-TRUMP NARRATIVE
NBC News published and aired a misquote of Republican Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy in December that suggested he was turning on President Donald Trump. The opposite was true.
NBC’s misquote made it seem that Cassidy was worried the president was involved in illegality related to hush payments to women he had affairs with. However, the full quote shows that Cassidy did not think the hush payments were crimes at all.
“The only question is then whether or not this so-called hush money is a crime. John Edwards obviously was prosecuted for the same thing and Justice Department failed,” Cassidy explained.
23. TIME MAGAZINE’S FAMILY SEPARATION COVER FEATURING CRYING HONDURAN CHILD
Time Magazine published an infamous cover in June that showed a Honduran child crying at the U.S. border, apparently after she had been separated from her mother. The image quickly became the face of the “issue of family separations at the border,” despite the fact that the child in question was never separated.
Later reports also revealed that, in contrast to common left-wing talking points, the mother and her child were not fleeing violence, and the mother had been previously deported from the U.S. In addition, the mother left three other children in Honduras and allegedly paid a smuggler to help her and her daughter cross the border illegally.
24. MIC WRITER CLAIMS RUSSIAN SPY WAS IN THE OVAL OFFICE
Shortly after it was revealed that a Russian spy was attempting to infiltrate right-wing networks, Mic writer Emily Singer claimed that same Russian spy was present during an Oval Office meeting with Russian diplomat Sergey Lavrov.
Singer claimed Russian spy Maria Butina was spotted in a photo of the meeting, citing the fact that she has red hair like the woman in the photo.
The woman in the photo is actually NSC staffer Cari Lutkins.
25. LAWRENCE O’DONNELL SPREADS FAKE LINDSEY GRAHAM QUOTE
MSNBC anchor Lawrence O’Donnell misquoted Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham in September to suggest that he was bashing Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
O’Donnell claimed that Graham called Ford’s allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “garbage,” but Graham’s actual quote reveals he was talking specifically about gang rape allegations.
“If you’re a gang rapist when you’re in high school, you don’t just let it go,” Graham said. “[Kavanaugh’s] been at the highest level of public service, under tremendous scrutiny, 6 FBI investigations, and we missed the sophomore and junior gang rapist.”
“We didn’t miss it. It’s a bunch of garbage,” Graham asserted.
26. JENNIFER RUBIN MAKES FALSE ACCUSATION ABOUT GOP’S KAVANAUGH PROSECUTOR
Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post’s “conservative” columnist, claimed that the prosecutor chosen by the GOP to question Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had previously worked with controversial Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell was not “someone from Sheriff Joe’s operation” as Rubin claimed— the two worked in separate agencies. Mitchell was employed at the Maricopa County Attorney’s office, while Arpaio worked in the Sheriff’s Department.
27. MEDIA SPREADS CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT MELANIA POST-SURGERY
First lady Melania Trump took some time away from public life in June after undergoing kidney surgery, and the media quickly started speculating about her whereabouts.
The media elevated several bizarre claims about Melania, including an allegation that she had moved out of the White House and another that she was secretly recovering from plastic surgery.
Other reporters didn’t cite the conspiracies, but did suggest that something was amiss about Melania’s brief respite from the spotlight.
“The last time we caught a glimpse of her was on May 10,” CNN reporter Brian Stelter said. “There’s been a lot of questions about her surgery at Walter Reed and now her invisibility…how long does she have to be out of sight to make this a legitimate media story?”
28. NEW YORKER PUBLISHES KAVANAUGH ACCUSATION WITH ZERO CORROBORATION
The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow — generally known for their sharp reporting on sexual harassment — made a major blunder with their report on Deborah Ramirez’s allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Ramirez claimed Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face at a college party, but The New Yorker was unable to produce any firsthand witnesses or even confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party in question.
The New York Times even opted not to run the same allegation because they were unable to corroborate it. Ramirez herself admitted she had significant memory gaps about the incident and she told former classmates that she wasn’t even sure if Kavanaugh was the offender.
29. DAILY BEAST CLAIMS MIGRANTS IN CARAVAN DON’T HAVE DISEASES
The Daily Beast claimed that there is “zero evidence” that members of the migrant caravan were bringing HIV and TB into the United States.
The Tijuana Health Department reported a handful of cases of tuberculosis, HIV and chickenpox among the caravan. Officials with the Mexican state of Baja California disputed that there have been cases of tuberculosis, but confirmed that some migrants are carrying HIV and chickenpox.
30. AP PINS IMMIGRANT ABUSE ON TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
The Associated Press published a report in June about abuse of child immigrants in the U.S., but did its best to bury the fact that the abuse primarily occurred under the Obama administration.
As this reporter noted at the time, “The article mentions President Donald Trump and his administration’s zero-tolerance policy at least four times in the first ten paragraphs, leaving the implicit suggestion that the Trump administration is responsible for the alleged abuse.”
The AP sneakily admitted in the 20th paragraph that the alleged abuse began in 2016 — during the Obama administration — but never bothered to mention Obama’s name in connection with the report.
31. KAVANAUGH CLERK FLASHED ‘WHITE POWER’ SYMBOL
Former Brett Kavanaugh clerk Zina Bash, who was sitting behind the Supreme Court nominee during his hearings, was accused of flashing a white supremacist symbol on camera.
The accusation stemmed from a video clip that showed Bash’s hand resting on her arm with the “OK sign,” a symbol that leftists have claimed actually signals “white power.”
Far from being a white supremacist, Bash is Mexican and Jewish and her grandparents were Holocaust survivors.
“The attacks today on my wife are repulsive,” Bash’s husband said. “Everyone tweeting this vicious conspiracy theory should be ashamed of themselves. We weren’t even familiar with the hateful symbol being attributed to her for the random way she rested her hand during a long hearing.”
32. MEDIA CLAIMS OBAMA DIDN’T SEPARATE FAMILIES AT THE BORDER
“ICE could not devise a safe way where men and children could be in detention together in one facility,” Leon Fresco, a deputy assistant attorney general under Obama, said. “It was deemed too much of a security risk.”
Media and Breaking News Editor. Follow Amber on Twitter.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by The Daily Caller is republished with permission.
President Donald Trump sparred with House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in an extraordinary Oval Office session before TV cameras.
Schumer and Pelosi visited The White House on Tuesday to negotiate with Trump over border wall funding in the next spending bill. The pair offered Trump approximately 1.3 billion dollars in funding for the wall, while the president demanded 5 billion dollars. The impasse could lead to a partial government shutdown.
Pelosi set the tone for the discussion at the beginning of her statement noting that any shutdown would be known as “The Trump Shutdown,” prompting the president to immediately interrupt her. The two continued to spar over whether Trump had the votes for proposed border wall funding in the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
“If we thought we would get it passed in the Senate, Nancy, we would do it immediately,” Trump declared, adding, “It doesn’t matter, though, because you can’t get it passed in the Senate because we need ten Democrats’ vote.”
Pelosi then questioned why TV camera’s were present during budget negotiations prompting Trump to declare, “It’s called transparency, Nancy.”
Trump then turned the floor over to Schumer, who also castigated the president for declaring that he would rather shut the government down than accept the Democrats’ proposals. Trump angrily turned to Schumer and said, “you want to know something? Yes, if we don’t get what we want whether its through you, one way or the other, I will shut down the government.”
“I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck,” he continued. “People in this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I won’t blame you for it. The last time, you shut it down. It didn’t work.”
The pair of lawmakers said after the meeting that they had no intention of meeting Trump’s demands and told him they would only offer him the option of passing existing levels of funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Schumer and Pelosi both said Trump would be to blame for any potential government shutdown.
The deadline for spending occurs Dec. 21, with no current breakthroughs on negotiations.
White House Correspondent
The Trump Administration should know by now that they can’t keep stuff like this quiet because they have permitted the blabbermouths in the deep state to run wild.
“White House chief of staff John Kelly reportedly told other members of the Trump administration that if it were up to him the number of refugees admitted into the U.S. would be between zero and one,” say leakers in the Trump White House or State Department.
Here is the latest from The Atlantic. I don’t really want to put an inordinate amount of emphasis on this screening for terrorists activity because I don’t think it is our greatest threat from out-of-control immigration/refugee resettlement.
Our greatest problem (IMHO) is the enormous social and cultural upheaval from large numbers of migrants (of any sort) entering the US who will not assimilate and don’t have any respect for our laws and our Constitution as designed. And, on top of that, we, the taxpayers, pay for it all!
If Islamic terrorism is our greatest concern, how are we going to screen-out the 2-year-olds who enter the country and grow up two decades later (under the influence of the local mosque) to become Jihadists?
(Yes, the Boston bombers were refugees because they were, under the law, a category of refugee—successful asylum seekers. And, yes, Somalis who have tried to kill Americans came as little children, as refugees!).
Let me ask this: If this security screening issue gets ironed out, does it mean our gates will be opened wide to allow uncontrolled migration from across the globe?
Honestly, I’m getting weary of being dragged down the screening rabbit hole…
….but, since I’m sure you want to know what the latest Trump Administration screening project entails, here is some news about it (albeit with a Leftist slant):
The Trump administration issued an order Tuesday that resumed the resettlement of refug s in the United States, but said the applications of citizens from 11 “higher-risk” countries would be considered on a case-by-case basis during a new 90-day review period. The administration has so far declined to name the countries officially and publicly but two officials—one from the administration and the other from an advocacy group—separately confirmed that the countries were Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. All of those countries—except North Korea and South Sudan—are predominantly Muslim.
Six countries on the list—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and North Korea—were not a surprise: They were also on the latest version of the administration’s travel ban that was announced last month and is currently blocked by the courts. But that travel ban also included the citizens of Chad and Venezuela. Tuesday’s refugee list, on the other hand, included the citizens of Iraq, Mali, Sudan, South Sudan, and Egypt. The restrictions imposed last month were an outright ban on travelers—but not refugees—from those countries. Tuesday’s announcement does not constitute a ban. Rather, it is a list of 11 countries whose citizens will be subject to additional security screening if they apply for refugee status in the U.S.
The 11 nations on Tuesday’s list made up a significant proportion of refugees accepted by the U.S. in the last fiscal year, which ended September 30. Of the 53,716 refugees accepted by the U.S. in that time, 23,357 were from the 11 listed countries (about 43 percent), according to data maintained by the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center. The breakdown of the number of refugees accepted from each of the 11 countries in the last fiscal year is as follows: Egypt, 9; Iran, 2,577; Iraq, 6,886; Libya, 3; Mali, 6; North Korea, 12; Somalia, 6,130; South Sudan, 176; Sudan, 980; Syria, 6,557; and Yemen, 21. [I’m grateful that someone took the time to do the numbers—ed]
“This is remarkable. The administration has had more than six months to review this policy under the March EO [executive order on travel], and they’ve come back in October to re-impose what will largely be seen as another unreasonable ban that primarily affects Muslims,” said Eric Schwartz, the president of Refugees International, a group that advocates for refugees. Although the move announced Tuesday is not a ban, refugee advocates say it is tantamount to one because of the additional security requirements that are often time-consuming.
“I hope they at least have the decency to be transparent about what they are doing, and name the nationalities affected,” Schwartz said. “It is a cynical and tragic manipulation of administrative process, and conflicts with U.S. values and interests.”
Go here to read more.
I was more interested in the portion of the new EO that calls for the Justice Department to evaluate the whole Refugee Program over the next 180 days.
And, gee, maybe the Administration will take its job more seriously than that bunch running the House of Representatives. See yesterday’s House hearing.
Learn more about Eric Schwartz by clicking here.
RELATED ARTICLE: Secrets of the Black Stadium: In Raqqa, Inside ISIS’ House of Horror
Full David Brock confidential memo on fighting Donald Trump obtained by the Washington Free Beacon at the January 19-21, 2017, ‘Democracy Matters’ Florida donor retreat at Turnberry Isle Resort in Aventura, Florida.
RELATED ARTICLE: To Sink Trump is to Sink Ordinary Americans | Opinion – Conservative
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has become the voice of the new Democrat Party. His followers are passionately engaged and willing to do whatever it takes to bring themselves and the Democrat Party back to power.
Senator Sanders has given rise to the “Berniecrat” political revolution. He and his followers have moved beyond socialism to communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism and has historically required violence to overthrow the existing from of government in order to fully implement its ideology.
CNN’s Gregory Krieg in an article titled Sanders to faithful: Take down Trump, take over Democratic Party wrote:
Bernie Sanders’ permanent “political revolution” rolled into Chicago on Saturday night [June 10, 2017], as the Vermont senator called on progressive activists gathered here to beat back President Donald Trump’s agenda while remaking the Democratic Party.
Speaking to a crowd of buzzing supporters in former President Barack Obama’s adopted hometown, Sanders ripped Trump’s “incredible hypocrisy” and called the President a demagogue who makes “even a very conservative president like George W. Bush” appealing in comparison.
But it was his unsparing assessment of the party whose nomination he sought in 2016 that set off an audience of nearly 4,000 mostly dedicated “Berniecrats.”
Senator Sanders has used rhetoric that has inflamed his supporters such as James T. Hodgkinson who specifically targeted unarmed Republicans, their families, children and supporters at a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia wounding five including Congressman Steve Scalise, the majority whip of the House of Representatives.
The NSA leaker Reality Leigh Winner is a Bernie Sanders supporter. Chuck Ross from The Daily Caller found,
The 25-year-old woman who stole “Top Secret” documents from the National Security Agency and leaked them to The Intercept appears to be a supporter of Bernie Sanders and other progressive icons, such as Bill Maher and Michael Moore.
Reality Leigh Winner’s apparent social media footprint also shows that she is a supporter of other liberal causes, including the Women’s March and the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim civil rights group.
She also recently referred to President Trump as a “piece of shit” because of his position on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests.
Winner was indicted in federal court on Monday after she allegedly stole classified documents from her employer, Pluribus International, a defense contractor that does work for the NSA from its offices in Augusta, Ga.
Another example of a Berniecrat is Jeremy Joseph Christian. The Daily Caller’s Derek Hunter reported,
Jeremy Joseph Christian, the 35-year-old Portland man who allegedly murdered two men and left another critically wounded while yelling anti-Muslim slurs in a knife attack on Friday, has been painted by the mainstream media as a “right-wing extremist,” but posts on his Facebook page indicate he was a supporter of socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
According to screen captures of his Facebook page obtained by Buzzfeed, Christian was not a Trump supporter, as many media outlets claimed, but was a supporter of the idea of a Sanders/Stein ticket.
Democrats, like Senator Sanders, are relentlessly yelling “fire” in a crowed political theater. The predictable result is assassination for political purposes.
Senator Sanders supported Representative Keith Ellison to Chair the Democrat Party. Ellison is now the Deputy Chair of the Democrat Party. Representative Keith Ellison’s background is extremist. He fits the profile of a Berniecrat. Discover the Networks reports:
“Racism means conspiracy to subjugate and actual subjugation. That means planned social, economic, military, religious and political subjugation of whites. It cannot be intelligently argued that the Nation of Islam is doing this. In fact, blacks have no history of harming or subjecting whites as a class. On the other hand, whites have it written into their very Constitution that blacks shall be considered three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and representation of their white owners. Their Constitution also makes provisions for the return of runaway slaves. Their constitution is the bedrock of American law; it’s the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”
(b) In a November 30, 1989 column, Ellison wrote: “The news media prints only the most sensational bits and pieces, never the whole story. This leaves people believing that the Nation of Islam is some kind of black Ku Klux Klan, and they immediately dismiss all of its laudable work.”
(c) On February 2, 1990, Ellison published “Affirmative Action Does Not Make up for Past Injustice,” an article advocating slavery reparations as well as the creation of a geographically self-contained “homeland” for black people:
“Since no one but the WASP elite really appreciates affirmative action, I have a challenge for all fair-minded middle- and working-class white people: I will urge black people to abandon white-dominated, integration-oriented, give-away programs, if you urge white people to justly compensate black people for 250 years of slavery, 90 years of Jim Crow and 25 years of neo-Jim Crow.
Ellison is a heartbeat away from becoming Chair of the Democrat Party.
These are just four examples of supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders. There are millions more Berniecrats out there. This is a ticking time bomb that is ready to explode.
Don’t say we didn’t warn you Democrats!
RELATED VIDEO: From “Feeling the Bern” to “Feeling the Turn.” Turning Point News sat down with former Bernie supporter Jessica Dobrinski to discuss her new allegiance to Turning Point USA.
I want to scream! I missed this op-ed from January 27th, but the International Rescue Committee is re-tweeting it this morning and it caught my eye.
Here we have David Miliband, the former Labour Party British Foreign Secretary lecturing Donald Trump about “fundamental American values” after Trump announced his Executive Order to keep America safe by temporarily halting immigration from known terrorist hotspots.
And, to make matters worse Miliband’s organization pulls in over $450 million in government grants every year (click here). Some of that money is used to quietly place refugees in American towns and cities and give George Soros Freedom Awards!
Miliband’s annual salary as CEO of the IRC is a whopping $591,846! But, Leftist media like the NYT never reports any of this!
Here is Miliband’s NYT Op-ed:
President Trump’s executive order suspending the entire resettlement program for 120 days and banning indefinitely the arrival of Syrian refugees is a repudiation of fundamental American values, an abandonment of the United States’ role as a humanitarian leader and, far from protecting the country from extremism, a propaganda gift to those who would plot harm to America.
The next paragraph of Miliband’s Op-ed is a prime example of the selective information people like Miliband put out in their propaganda.
Yes, he is right that most of the refugees entering the U.S. from Iran are non-Muslims (I say most because we do admit some Muslims, why from Iran?). However, he doesn’t tell you that almost 100% of the Syrians admitted to the US are Muslims of both Islamic sects, and only a tiny handful of the persecuted Christians are admitted.
In my data report, here yesterday, I told you that of a recent group of 402 Syrians admitted only 2 are Christians!
The order also suggests that the resettlement program should make persecuted religious minorities a higher priority, implying that they have been neglected in the past. This is incorrect; existing law already places strong emphasis on religious persecution among the criteria for resettlement. For example, most of the refugees from Iran — a Muslim-majority country — who are resettled by my organization are not Muslim.
And, here we go again with this 36 month c***! 18-24 months was the number they previously used and now they are talking about 36 months for refugees waiting (not being screened for 18, 24, or 36 months). And, in fact, in April 2016, the Obama Administration reduced the Syrian screening down to 3 months, see here.
They never mention that in October 2015 FBI Director Comey said here that there is no way to thoroughly screen the Syrians (and I maintain the Somalis either!) because they come from a failed state with NO RECORDS!
And, here, in September 2016, Senator Sessions and Cruz pulled testimony out of the Obama USCIS head that they must often RELY ON THE STRENGTH OF PERSONAL STORIES because they have no data on the refugee.
Nevertheless, Miliband continues to spin his propaganda!
Compared with other types of immigrants, refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group to enter the United States. The resettlement process can take up to 36 months and involves screenings by the Department of Homeland Security, the F.B.I., the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Counterterrorism Center and United States intelligence community.
There is more, continue reading here if you want to get fired up for the day!
See our growing archive on Miliband here.
On January 20, 2017, the very same day that President Donald J. Trump was inaugurated, protestors who opposed Trump’s election and his campaign promises took to the streets in Washington, DC and elsewhere. They falsely equated securing America’s borders and enforcing our immigration laws with bigotry and racism.
The protestors carried signs with a variety of slogans including a slogan favored by Hillary Clinton during her failed bid for the presidency, “Build bridges, not walls.”
Where were these protestors when Obama violated the Constitution, released hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens, commuted the sentences of record numbers of drug dealers and ignored the findings of the 9/11 Commission and imported millions of foreign workers to take Americans’ jobs?
Ironically, on that same day, the Justice Department issued a press release, “Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera Faces Charges in New York for Leading a Continuing Criminal Enterprise and other Drug-Related Charges.”
El Chapo was the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel that smuggled multi-ton quantities of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana into the United States and used extreme violence and corruption in order to achieve their criminal goals that included the smuggling of huge quantities of illegal drugs into the United States.
The indictment alleges that between January 1989 and December 2014, Guzman Loera led a continuing criminal enterprise responsible for importing into the United States and distributing massive amounts of illegal narcotics and conspiring to murder persons who posed a threat to Guzman Loera’s narcotics enterprise.
Guzman Loera is also charged with using firearms in relation to his drug trafficking and money laundering relating to the bulk smuggling from the United States to Mexico of more than $14 billion in cash proceeds from narcotics sales throughout the United States and Canada. As part of this investigation, nearly 200,000 kilograms of cocaine linked to the Sinaloa Cartel have been seized. The indictment seeks forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits.
Leaders of Drug Trafficking Organizations, alien smuggling rings and terrorists seeking to enter the United States surreptitiously could not devise a better slogan than “Build bridges not walls” to promote their criminal interests.
Perhaps, given the numerous reports about tunnels under the U.S./Mexican border, the open borders/immigration anarchists should amend their signs to read, “Build bridges and tunnels not walls.”
That slogan must really resonate with El Chapo the leader of the violent Sinaloa Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization that, not unlike other such cartels, required the ability to cross the U.S./Mexican border to not only transport their drugs but their “employees” into the United States as well.
These cartel “employees” are primarily aliens who enter the United States illegally. Among them as noted in the criminal indictment, are “sicarios,” or hit men who carried out hundreds of acts of violence, including murders, assaults, kidnappings, assassinations and acts of torture at the direction of the defendants.
Often the victims of the violence are members of the ethnic immigrant communities in which these thugs operate.
The majority of violent crime in the United States has a nexus to the use and/or trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs. The proceeds of the drug trade enriches the drug cartels and street gangs. This fast flow of money also enriches terror organizations around the world.
All too often those who become addicted to drugs have bleak futures. Tragically, often these addicts are teenagers.
The magnitude of the quantity of drugs smuggled into the United States across the U.S./Mexican border and through other means (in the holds of ships and in the cargo holds of airliners and in the baggage and secreted on passengers of airliners) is, in the aggregate, truly staggering.
El Chapo is being prosecuted in the Eastern District of New York because of the magnitude of his wholesale operations in New York City. The Sinaloa Cartel also operated in Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles and throughout parts of Arizona.
The magnitude and scope of the violence used by the Sinaloa Cartel was staggering and the press release noted that thousands of individuals were killed in Mexico to eliminate those who got in their way.
They killed law enforcement officials and others to intimidate those who would compete against this criminal organization or cooperate with law enforcement. Many of the victims were beheaded as an intimidation tactic.
This investigation was conducted by courageous law enforcement officers in Colombia, Mexico, the United States and elsewhere. In the United States the investigation was pursued by the multi-agency Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) that includes agents of the DEA, FBI, ICE, ATF as well as members of local and state police departments.
Having spent the final ten years of my career with the INS assigned to OCDETF I am extremely familiar with the effectiveness of the multiagency task force approach to the investigation and dismantling of late-scale narcotics trafficking organizations and just how critical border security and effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws, from within the interior of the United States, are to the success of these law enforcement efforts.
Incredibly, however, when Donald Trump promised to build a wall to secure the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico to prevent criminals, terrorists and drugs from entering the United States, the globalists, aided and abetted by dishonest journalists, created the false narrative equating Trump’s goals and the goals of Americans who demand that our borders be secured against illegal entry with racism.
Securing our borders against illegal entry is not to be equated with preventing all aliens from entering the United States, only those aliens who violate our laws.
The doors on our homes have locks that can be unlatched not only so that we can enter our own homes, but so that we can selectively open our doors to those who wish to visit us. However sensible people lock their doors to prevent the entry of burglars and those who might pose a threat to their safety.
This is comparable to the mission of the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by the more than 20,000 inspectors of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) the same agency that employs approximately 20,000 Border Patrol agents to attempt to interdict those aliens who seek to avoid the inspections process by running our borders.
Determinations as to the admissibility of aliens seeking entry into the United States is guided not by race, religion or ethnicity as politicians, pundits and pollsters falsely claim, but by the provisions of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens.
Jimmy Carter created the Orwellian term “Undocumented Immigrant” to describe illegal aliens that has, over time, enabled immigration anarchists to con many Americans into believing that deporting illegal aliens actually refers to deporting all “immigrants.”
For the sake of clarity, the difference between and immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.
However, while the protestors demonstrate and engage in free speech, they need to be mindful that a one-sided conversation is not a conversation.
When news organizations provide only one side of the debate and, indeed, create a false narrative under the guise of the First Amendment, they are doing a huge disservice to their profession and to America and Americans.
How many of the protestors who demanded that we “build bridges not walls” would have participated in the demonstration carrying those signs, if the organizations, faculty members of universities and teachers in our nation’s schools would truly honor the First Amendment by ending “Safe Spaces” and encouraging and fostering honest and open debates to provide Americans with a vital but increasingly rare commodity: The Truth?
It is unfathomable that hundreds of thousands of people, many of them parents, would protest on behalf of El Chapo and others engaged in the drug trade to facilitate the trafficking or narcotics in the United States and the violent crimes and malevolent transnational gangs associated with the drug trade. Yet, unwittingly, this is precisely what they are doing.
It is equally likely that the numbers of such protestors would have been greatly reduced if the media and our politicians had honestly reported on the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission when reporting on the threat of terrorism and its nexus to failures of the immigration system.
Yet there they were, demanding that our borders be left vulnerable and our immigration laws not be enforced.
“Free speech” does not protect individuals who falsely cry, “Fire!” in a crowded theater to spark a stampede.
Memo to professors, journalists, pollsters and politicians: It is time for honest speech.
Trump’s future cabinet is cruising through Senate confirmation. And with the world in the state that it is, not a moment too soon.
Terrorism once again strikes Israel in the form of a truck attack. Sound familiar? Of course, the widow of the terrorist is already collecting a pension courtesy of the Palestinian Authority. Yet these people allegedly want peace? In Hungary, the Orban government takes the dramatic step of targeting George Soros’s network of NGOs. Good for them – Trump should follow suit. In France, populist Marine Le Pen promises repatriation of the French car industry, taking a cue from Trump’s (pre-office!) recent successes. Finally, China – continuing their provocations – deploys a sixth reconnaissance ship in the South China Sea.
With so much bubbling in the cauldron of world affairs, the new American administration can’t come soon enough!
Topics of Discussion:
- Trump’s nominees testify before the Senate
- Biden gets his very own medal
- First steps in repealing Obamacare
- Hungary targets George Soros
- Widow of Jerusalem truck terrorist gets Palestinian Authority pension
- China deploys sixth reconnaissance ship South China Sea
and more . . .
EDITORS NOTE: Readers may listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney’s Nightside Radio Studios and on Red State Talk Radio, subscribe to USA Transnational Report podcast on iTunes here and signup for podcasts with Podbean, here. All previously recorded shows are available here, at the links above, or through Spreaker.
Immigration anarchists have repeatedly drawn false analogies between their efforts to block the enforcement of immigration laws and the heroic action of those whose hard-fought efforts for decades provided black Americans with civil rights, but at great cost.
These anarchists emulate Jimmy Carter, creator of the Orwellian term ‘Undocumented Immigrant’ by referring to advocates for fair and effective immigration law enforcement as being “Anti-Immigrant.” This despicable tactic is now being used to falsely attack Senator Jeff Sessions, the nominee for Attorney General, accuse his support for such effective enforcement of our immigration laws as running contrary to civil rights and being against immigrants.
These anarchists refuse to concede what should be obvious, while aliens illegally present in the United States are entitled to human rights and due process, they are not entitled to broad civil rights protections. It is an outrageous contradiction in concepts to claim that aliens whose mere presence represents a violation of law should be provided with opportunities equal to those provided to American citizens and lawful immigrants.
In reality, immigration anarchists are, themselves, responsible for undermining the civil rights of Americans, particularly American minorities who suffer the greatest harm because of the failures of our government to enforce the immigration laws. Those immigration anarchists also are responsible for undermining the civil rights of lawful immigrants.
For the sake of clarity and to prevent any potential misunderstandings, illegal aliens, not unlike others, are entitled to human rights and are properly entitled to due process when accused of committing crimes. There are two reasons why due process must be devoid of consideration as to the immigration status of the accused. First of all, it is a matter of fairness and justice.
Creating a lower standard for convicting illegal aliens for committing crimes would undermine the judicial system.
Additionally, unscrupulous prosecutors who simply wanted a “quick kill” would be encouraged to seek the conviction of illegal aliens who did not actually commit the crime. This is immoral and unjust. Secondly, under such circumstances, law enforcement authorities would stop looking for the actual criminal who would therefore remain at large and continue to pose a threat.
Civil rights laws were initially enacted to address the wrongs visited upon black Americans beginning with slavery and then segregation.
Today those laws are focused on providing citizens, irrespective of race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity or orientation, with equal protection under our laws and equal opportunities, thereby enabling them to be full participants in the communities where they live and throughout our nation.
Sanctimonious and hypocritical mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” portray themselves as heroic figures, perhaps on par with the “Freedom Riders” who, decades ago, at great personal risk, fought to end racial discrimination and segregation in the South.
Make no mistake, those Freedom Riders were heroes who should be lauded and remembered for their morality, courage and achievements.
Mayors of Sanctuary Cities, however, are anything but heroes. They are betrayers. Betrayers of the Constitution, betrayers of their oaths of office, betrayers of national security and public safety and betrayers of their constituents.
Such rogue politicians act against the best interests of their constituents and those who reside in, or visit their cities by turning their jurisdictions into magnets for aliens who are illegally present in the United States. Among those illegal aliens are those who have serious criminal histories, have outstanding arrest warrants in the United States or in other countries or may be international terrorists or supporters of terrorism. These aliens may have entered the United States without inspection or entered through ports of entry but went on to otherwise violate our immigration laws that, it must be noted, are completely and utterly blind as to race, religion or ethnicity.
Such rogue politicians act against the best interests of those who reside in, or visit their cities, because they are turning their jurisdictions into magnets for aliens who are illegally present in the United States. Among those illegal aliens are those who have serious criminal histories, have outstanding arrest warrants in the United States or in other countries or may be international terrorists or supporters of terrorism. These aliens may have entered the United States without inspection or entered through ports of entry but went on to otherwise violate our immigration laws that, it must be noted, are completely and utterly blind as to race, religion or ethnicity.
The ultimate “hate crime” involves acts of violence committed against members of a community because of factors such as race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Transnational gangs often target their victims because of such factors. Failures of immigration law enforcement have enabled such violent gangs to flourish across the United States.
Beyond undermining national security and public safety, Sanctuary Cities additionally attract massive numbers of illegal aliens who have no legal authority to work in the United States yet are able to secure illegal employment, thereby displacing American workers.
This includes American teenagers – often American minority teenagers, who find themselves unable to find a job, creating for them the conundrum of not being able to get a job without a resume but not being able to assemble a resume without first getting a job.
Furthermore, labor is a commodity. Flooding the labor pool with foreign workers, suppresses the value of labor. Consequently, even Americans and lawful immigrants who don’t lose their jobs to illegal aliens likely face wage suppression because of them.
It is more than mere coincidence that the division of the Civil Rights Commission that deals with discriminatory employment practices is referred to as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
Employment, in point of fact, provides opportunities to those who are able to work.
Opportunities to be self-sufficient, opportunities to succeed and advance and prosper all revolve around the ability to be gainfully employed.
Blocking qualified workers from job opportunities deprives them essential and fundamental opportunities to be successful.
Politicians who comply with the demands of campaign contributors and others who exert pressure on them to flood America with cheap and compliant foreign labor to displace American workers and suppress wages.
The destruction of the middle class is not an “unintended consequence” but the goal of their duplicitous conduct.
A news report on how job losses create multiple stresses quoted Michael McKee, a psychologist at the Center for Integrative Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic who articulated his concerns about how the possible loss of financial ability to support oneself and family my lead to a loss of self-respect and the respect of others. Thus leading to the loss of identity, security and daily structure, ultimately leading to people who lose meaning and hope.
A study published a couple of years ago found that poverty stresses the brain so much that it’s like losing 13 IQ points.
Prior to the Second World War the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was vested primarily within the Labor Department to make certain that Americans would not have to compete with foreign workers for jobs. This is how America created the largest and most upwardly mobile middle class of all countries on this planet at the time, thus creating the “American Dream.”
Civil rights laws also enforced in conjunction with our immigration laws to make certain that employers treat all employees equally including aliens provided that the aliens in question are authorized by law to be employed in the United States. Indeed, even where the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended segregation and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, discriminatory employment practices were prohibited to insure, equal employment opportunities. Over time these laws were amended to protect additional groups of protected workers and even include aliens who are authorized to work in the United States.
In fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has posted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) on its website. Among the provisions of IRCA was a massive amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens and the provision that, for the very first time, deemed the knowing employment of illegal aliens to be a violation of law.
The EEOC has a vested interest and, indeed, jurisdiction, in cases involving allegations of Employment Discrimination.
Not only does the EEOC have jurisdiction when Americans claim employment discrimination, but it also has jurisdiction if an allegation is made that an alien, authorized to work in the United States seeking employment, suffered discrimination during the hiring process by an overly zealous employer who went beyond the requirements of preparing the Form I-9 to verify the identity and eligibility of an alien applying for a job or if an alien, authorized to work in the United States, faced discriminatory policies by his/her employer.
However, all of the laws and regulations that have been promulgated to end workplace discrimination are undone by the veritable army of foreign workers who have displaced beleaguered American workers.
Think of how many politicians running for office promise to help “create jobs” and to “bring back jobs to America.”
Whether politicians are running for political office on the local, state or federal level. Whether they seek to become a member of the city council, mayors or governors. Even if they are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate or even the Presidency of the United States, they all make that same promise about jobs and “getting Americans back to work.”
Failures of the immigration system make those promises largely meaningless when American workers are displaced by aliens.
For open borders/immigration anarchists, failures of the immigration system are to be engineered and then celebrated.
In reality, those failures are devastating to America and Americans and undermine the letter and spirit of our civil rights laws.
If immigration anarchists want to point to those responsible for undermining civil rights, they should stand in front of a mirror and point at themselves.
Time and again our elected political “representatives” on all levels of government have acted in ways that failed to truly represent the best interests of America and Americans.
Time and again my articles have focused on my frustration and anger over how all too many politicians have obstructed the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.
I have written extensively about how members of Congress who supported so-called, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” blithely ignored the findings and, indeed, warnings about the 9/11 Commission by concocting legislation that would provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with official identity documents and lawful status even though there would be no way to conduct interviews or field investigations to screen to combat immigration fraud. Visa fraud and immigration benefit fraud were identified as key entry and embedding tactics of international terrorists.
“Sanctuary Cities” created by rogue mayors operate in direct opposition of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens), an immigration criminal statute that address harboring, shielding, aiding and abetting, encouraging and inducing aliens to enter the United States illegally and/or remain in the United States illegally after entry.
Today, however, we have cause to be optimistic. Congressman Lou Barletta who truly represents the citizens of his home town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania and, in so doing, all Americans from coast to coast and border to border has, for the third time, introduced legislation that would strip all federal funding from cities that fail to cooperate fully with immigration law enforcement activities.
I am proud that Lou has become a personal friend.
Prior to his election to Congress he was the mayor of Hazleton. He was shocked when his peaceful town was, for lack of a better term, invaded by a violent Dominican narcotics-trafficking gang that engaged in drug dealing and violent crimes including murder.
Although he approached the administration of President George W. Bush and asked for federal assistance in confronting these illegal criminal aliens, the administration refused to help. As a consequence he promulgated the first ordinances that penalized employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens and landlords who would knowingly provide housing to illegal aliens.
He was promptly sued in federal court by advocates for illegal aliens. I was his final witness at the trial that ensued.
Lou was first elected to Congress in 2011. He is currently a member of several committees including:
- House Homeland Security Committee
- Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security
- Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence
Lou is certainly an asset to those committees and to America.
On September 3, 2013 I joined Congressman Lou Barletta on the campus of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University tat a town hall meeting, covered by C-SPAN, on the topic of “Immigration Policy and Homeland Security.”
The video of the town hall event is well worth watching. During our discussion, Lou clearly articulated his concerns about how failures of immigration law enforcement have cost all too many innocent victims their lives and leave America and Americans vulnerable to terrorism and crime.
On January 5, 2017 Lou posted a press release with the clear title, “Barletta’s 1st Bill Of 115th Congress: Defund Sanctuary Cities.”
Here is how Lou’s press release begins:
WASHINGTON – Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11) today introduced the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 83, which will stop all federal funds from flowing to states or localities which resist or ban enforcement of federal immigration laws, or flatly refuse to cooperate with immigration officials. The bill is the first piece of legislation introduced by Barletta in the 115th Congress and represents the third time the congressman has introduced the measure. In 2011, the bill was the first piece of legislation he ever introduced as a member of Congress. He introduced it a second time in the 114th Congress in 2015.
“One of the principal duties of the government is to protect its citizens, and the idea of sanctuary cities runs completely counter to that responsibility,” Barletta said. “Too many mayors and local governments think that they are above federal law and place their own ideology ahead of the safety of their residents. This bill will stop that practice by saying to these sanctuary cities, ‘If you refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, you will lose your federal funding.’”
Barletta introduced the bill as a freshman congressman in 2011 because of his personal experience with the danger of sanctuary cities while he was mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania. In 2006, a 29-year-old local father of three, Derek Kichline, was murdered by an illegal immigrant who had been released by law enforcement a number of times, including by the sanctuary city of New York. Additionally, Barletta was spurred to reintroduce the bill in 2015 following the San Francisco murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle, whose accused killer was a seven-time felon who had been deported five times previously.
Although the Obama administration has paid lip service to speak against sanctuary cities, the Obama administration has virtually turned the United States into a “Sanctuary Country” litigating against Arizona and taking other adverse actions against those who would enforce our immigration laws while releasing tens of thousands of criminal aliens who subsequently committed more crimes including homicides and violent assaults.
President-elect Trump made effective immigration law enforcement the cornerstone of his election campaign. Donald Trump promised he would end Sanctuary Cities, putting the lives of innocent people ahead of the lives of illegal aliens and, in particular, criminal aliens who have been responsible for massive levels of carnage and violence on the streets of American cities.
While Obama would never sign the legislation that Lou proposed in the past, it is a near certainty that Trump would be eager to sign that bill into law thereby helping the soon-to-be president achieve one of his first goals.
All that would remain would be for Congress to pass Lou’s important bill to get it to President Trump’s desk after January 20th.
It is important that you reach out to your member of Congress and insist that he/she supports this vital legislation.
On January 20, 2017 President Trump can and likely will end all of Obama’s illegal immigration executive orders, but he needs to do more.
For decades the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was hobbled by lack of resources in general and a particularly devastating failure to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.
For decades the Border Patrol was perceived as the primary enforcement arm of America’s immigration laws and for the Border Patrol this worked out fine. They got the lion’s share of publicity and, far more importantly, the funding while INS special agents and the interior enforcement mission were all but ignored
When the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11, the former INS was dismantled and broken into several components of the DHS and mixed in with other agencies, principally the U.S. Customs Service.
Bad as it was for INS agents to operate in the shadow of the Border Patrol, the creation of the DHS was disastrous and caused many of the INS agents nostalgic for “the good old days.”
On May 5, 2005 the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”
I was one of four witnesses who testified at that hearing. In point of fact, I testified at several hearings that sought to understand the challenges that the creation of the DHS created for the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.
In my testimony I clearly articulated my concerns about the myriad issues created when the DHS was established and the former INS was dismantled.
Consider this excerpt from the testimony of then-Subcommittee Chairman John Hostettler in which he articulated the importance of immigration law enforcement and that was, however, hobbled by the creation of the DHS:
The first two Subcommittee hearings of the year examined in detail how the immigration enforcement agencies have inadequate resources and too few personnel to carry out their mission. The witnesses mentioned the lack of uniforms, badges, detention space, and the inevitable low morale of frontline agents who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming illegal aliens. If this were not enough, these ”immigration enforcement” agencies also face internal confusion resulting from dual or multiple missions in which immigration has all too often taken a back seat. Sadly, contrary to Congress’ expectations, immigration enforcement has not been the primary focus of either of these agencies, and that is the subject of today’s hearing.
The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.
There was a constant tug-of-war between providing good service to law-abiding aliens and enforcing the law against law-breakers. The plain language of the Homeland Security Act, Title D, creates a ”Bureau of Border Security,” and specifically transfers all immigration enforcement functions of INS into it. Yet when it came down to actually creating the two: new agencies, the Administration veered off course. Although the service functions of INS were transferred to USCIS, the enforcement side of INS was split in two, what is now Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to handle interior enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to guard our borders.
ICE was given all Customs agents, investigators, intelligence and analysis-from the Treasury Department, as well as the Federal Protective Service to guard Federal buildings, and the Federal Air Marshals to protect our airplanes, and finally the INS investigators.
CBP was given all Treasury Customs inspectors at the ports-of-entry, Agriculture Inspector from the Department Of Agriculture, and INS inspectors.
At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.
Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.
It is not certain on what basis it was determined that customs and agriculture enforcement should become part of the immigration enforcement agency, except to require Federal agents at the border to have more expertise and more functions.
It is also unknown on what basis the Federal Air Marshals should become part of this agency, especially since it has been revealed that the policy is not to apprehend out-of-immigration status aliens when discovered on flights. If the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the homeland, it cannot effect its mission by compromising or neglecting immigration enforcement for customs enforcement.
The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.
It was clear that the Bush administration was eager to de-emphasize immigration law enforcement. What was not noted in the testimony is that most of the management at ICE came from Legacy Customs and not from Legacy INS.
However, as bad as things became when the DHS was created by the Bush administration, the Obama administration, once again, caused ICE agents to become nostalgic about “the good old days” of the Bush administration.
While nature’s laws are immutable, legislated laws are not. Law enforcement personnel are essential to the enforcement of laws.
The incoming Trump administration must make effective interior enforcement of our immigration laws a key priority if his immigration policies are to be successful.
Additionally, because of the policies of the Obama administration, there is an abject lack of managers and agents who have any actual experience or understanding of effective immigration law enforcement.
Institutional memory about effective immigration law enforcement has been all but expunged from the DHS.
Furthermore, most federal prosecutors lack experience in bringing criminal charges for violations of immigration laws.
I would recommend that the Trump administration make training a key priority for all prosecutors and immigration enforcement programs as well as for the employees of USCIS.
They all need to work cooperatively and collaboratively.
The culture of the adjudications program that is the realm of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) is to not cooperate with the ICE agents. This culture was created and nurtured by the Obama administration.
The Trump administration must swiftly remove or reassign any USCIS managers who refuse to cooperate fully and collaboratively with ICE enforcement personnel.
Consider a particularly egregious case involving the manager of the San Bernardino office of USCIS obstructed ICE/HSI agents assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force from entering her facility. They were seeking to locate and arrest a suspected co-conspirator of the San Bernardino terror attack less than 24 hours after that attack.
She was subsequently nominated for the prestigious Secretary’s Award.
My article about this insanity included this excerpt:
On March 16, 2016, Senator Ron Johnson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, requested an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security into the circumstances surrounding this monumental screw-up. On June 1, 2016 the OIG report of the investigation was made public.
This is how the OIG report described the outrageous confrontation between the USCIS manager and the ICE agents:
The Field Office Director told the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building based on USCIS policy, and that she would need to obtain guidance from her superior before allowing them access. During this exchange, the agents also spoke by phone with the Acting Chief, Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), USCIS, Los Angeles. According to the HSI agents, he told the agents that it was USCIS policy not to arrest, detain, or interview on USCIS property.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) also accused her of lying to their investigators.
President-elect Trump’s has focused on immigration. He will have the unique opportunity to address the multiple failures of the immigration system, many of which are decades old while some were created by the Obama administration.
Trump’s leadership can undo the madness foisted on America and Americans by the Obama administration and even correct the errors inherent in the way that the DHS was created in response to the terror attacks of 9/11.
What a way to start the new year and a new administration.
EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared in Frontpage Magazine.
As political scientist Bernard Cohen put it, the press “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling them what to think about.”
The Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed news coverage during the 2016 general election from January 1st to November 8th, 2016. The study titled “News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters” flies in the face of the narrative that the Russians gave the election to Trump. Even MediaMatters for America agrees with the Harvard study and goes further to blame the “Fakestream Media” for Hillary Clinton’s loss.
In a MediaMatters column titled “Post-Mortem: How 2016 Broke Political Journalism” Matt Gertz writes:
The [2016 Presidential] campaign broke political journalism. Despite the vast differences between the two candidates, the message media consumers heard from journalists was that to an equal extent, both candidates were flawed.
In fact, according to Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy, which reviewed an analysis of news reports in major newspapers and cable and broadcast networks from January 1, 2015, through November 7, 2016, the conventional candidate actually received a higher proportion of negative coverage over the course of the campaign.
Gertz goes on to point out:
In a prescient July 2015 essay, reporter and Clinton biographer Jonathan Allen explained that over the course of her career, “coverage of Hillary Clinton differs from coverage of other candidates for the presidency,” and warned that the “difference encourages distortions that will ultimately affect the presidential race.” He pointed out the reason public perception of Clinton is distorted: because “the media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith unless there’s hard evidence otherwise” and outlets are willing to serve as a vector for unhinged, unfair, or false attacks on her character.
Here, according to MediaMatters, is the real reason for Hillary Clinton’s loss in one graphic:
It was media coverage of Hillary’s email servers, stupid, not the Russians.
Overall, however, editors and executives at major media outlets failed in their responsibility to present to their audience the full picture of the election in proper context, instead providing disproportionate scrutiny to relatively minor Clinton “scandals” in a way that ultimately resulted in a skewed picture of the election.
And that’s because the political press was unable to adapt its methods and practices to a dramatically different election season. In typical elections, news outlets often treat both major presidential candidates as relatively similar — comparing their flaws, scrutinizing their respective scandals, and framing the vote as a choice between two comparable options.
But this was not a normal election between two comparable choices. That sort of equivalency could not hope to provide viewers and readers with an accurate picture of this unusual race. And on balance, the press did not rise to this unique challenge.
Even after 16 months on the campaign trail, political journalists never figured out how to accurately depict the unprecedented nature of Trump’s candidacy…
So, even MediaMatters says it was the Fakestream Media who did in Hillary Clinton.
RELATED VIDEO: The Worst of MSNBC in 2016.