Posts

VIDEO: New Drone Footage Shows ‘Out of Control’ Situation at U.S.-Mexico Border

What more proof does any American need? The hostile, insurrectionist Democrat party are blowing up the country.

IMAGES SURFACE: New Drone Footage Shows ‘Out of Control’ Situation at US-Mexico Border

By Hannity Staff, September 16, 2021:

Recently released drone footage is revealing the “out of control” situation taking place at the US-Mexico border in Del Rio, Texas; showing thousands of Central American migrants waiting to be processed by Federal Agents before entering the United States.

“Our drone is back over the international bridge in Del Rio, TX. Per source, the number of migrants waiting to be processed has now swelled to approx 8,200. It was 4,000 yesterday AM. Doubled in one day. BP overwhelmed, & I’m told situation is ‘out of control,’” posted Fox News’ Bill Melugin.

The number of migrants crossing the United States border from Mexico continued to surge this summer, with new data from the Department of Homeland Security showing more than 200,000 encounters between immigrants and Federal Agents.

That’s up 317% compared to August 2020.

“The source told Fox that there were 208,887 encounters in August. While it marks the first decrease in migrant encounters seen under the Biden administration, where migrant encounters have been sharply rising for months, it is only a 2% drop over the more than 212,000 encounters in July,” reports Fox News.

“Additionally, the 208,887 number for August represents a 317% increase over last August 2020 which saw 50,014 apprehensions — and a 233% increase over August 2019, where there were 62,707 apprehensions during that year’s border crisis,” adds Fox.

“We have a plan, we are executing our plan and that takes time,” said DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas last month.

“A couple of days ago I was down in Mexico, and I said look, you know, if, if our borders are the first line of defense, we’re going to lose and this is unsustainable,” Mayorkas said. “We can’t continue like this, our people in the field can’t continue and our system isn’t built for it.

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Is Customs and Border Protection Covering Up the Arrest of Two Yemenis on the Terror Watch List?

As if we needed still more illustration of the fact that the border is a national security issue and that jihad terrorists are exploiting Biden’s handlers’ open border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced Monday that “U.S. Border Patrol agents assigned to the El Centro Sector arrested two Yemeni men within the last 2 months that were identified on a terrorism watch list.” Will any lessons be learned from this? Come on, man! Not only will no lessons be learned, but CBP had by Tuesday morning spiked its press release, replacing it with an “Access Denied” notice.

Maybe it’s just a glitch; the press release briefly reappeared on Tuesday afternoon, and then the “Access Denied” notice came back. Or maybe Biden’s handlers are nervous that wide distribution will expose their border policy even more than it is already exposed for the monstrous act of national betrayal that it is. Unfortunately for Biden’s handlers’ CBP, however, CBS-Los Angeles has already picked it up, as well as Reuters and the VOA.

“The first incident,” CBP reported in its now-spiked release, “occurred on January 29, at approximately 1:10 a.m., when agents assigned to the El Centro Station arrested a man for illegally entering the United States….Agents conducted records checks, which revealed that the man, a 33-year-old illegal alien from Yemen, was on the FBI’s Terrorism Watch List as well as on the No-Fly list.”

Then on March 30, “at approximately 11:30 p.m., when agents assigned to the El Centro Station arrested a man for illegally entering the United States,” agents “conducted records checks, which revealed that the man, a 26-year-old illegal alien from Yemen, was also on the FBI’s Terrorism Watch List and on the No-Fly list.”

How many more jihad terrorists have entered the United States via the Mexican border and not been caught? CBP confirmed in mid-March that four people on the FBI’s terror watch list have been apprehended at the Mexican border since October. CBP likewise reported on February 3 that “Yuma Sector Border Patrol agents arrested a group of 11 Iranian citizens who illegally crossed the border into the United States….Yuma Sector agents apprehended eight Iranian nationals in FY2020, compared to just 14 from all other border patrol sectors combined. So far in FY2021, Yuma Sector agents have apprehend [sic] 14 nationals from Iran.”

There is more. The Justice Department announced back in March 2020 that Mohamad Milon Hossain, a Bangladeshi national, “admitted that from March 2017 to June 2019, he conspired to bring, and brought, Bangladeshi nationals to the United States at the Texas border in exchange for payment.” And the military site SOFREP reported in January 2020 that “three members of the al-Qaeda terrorist group were stopped and apprehended trying to fly into Dallas while using passports from Colombia. The three entered Colombia via Venezuela.”

That same month, according to KYMA, “Mexicali Police Chief Maria Elena Andrade confirmed that a red alert has been issued at the Mexicali border due to a possible Iranian terrorist threat….‘We received reports that four nationals of Iran possibly carrying explosives were going to attempt to cross the border in the area of San Luis to Mexicali.’”

In October 2019, a Muslim migrant from Jordan named Moayad Heider Mohammad Aldairi was sentenced to three years in prison for sneaking at least six Yemeni Muslims into the United States across the border from Mexico.

Much of that took place during the Trump years, while the president was doing everything he could against intense opposition to get the border under control. Now it’s a free-for-all, and there is no telling how many jihad terrorists will enter the country via Mexico in the next four years.

But building a wall? That was racist. Things have gotten so bad at the border that Biden’s handlers are even considering finishing Trump’s wall, but they’re likely to face such withering blowback even from the suggestion that nothing is less likely. Anyone who wishes to make the trip is going to continue to stream in at will.

How long must this go on? How many Islamic jihadis must we admit into our country before this broken system is repaired? How many Americans have to die at the hands of these “refugees” before the calls of an increasing number of Americans to stop this madness are heeded?

When the apprehension of the two Yemenis was announced, Chief Patrol Agent Gregory K. Bovino stated: “Part of the Border Patrol’s mission states we will protect the country from terrorists. Today, like every other day, our agents did that. These apprehensions at our border illustrates the importance of our mission and how we can never stop being vigilant in our everyday mission to protect this great country.”

Yes, but haven’t you heard, Agent Bovino? It’s “racist” to be vigilant. And when you apprehend jihadis, it’s “Islamophobic” as well. Stand down, man! Scrub that press release!

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Dept declares April ‘Arab American Heritage Month,’ says Arab contributions to US ‘as old as America itself’

Ex-Muslim woman says Pakistani culture has held her back more than racism in UK, ‘I know the backlash I’ll get’

UK: Victim of Muslim migrant rape gang ringleader demands he be deported (he was ordered deported six years ago)

Sweden: Public broadcaster SVT invites imam to explain the significance of Easter

UK: Daughter of murdered Muslim man calls for official definition of ‘Islamophobia’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

WATCH: Parade of Migrants Stream Across Border into Arizona

A predictable catastrophe. The Democrat Party believes that the people pouring across the boarder are potential voters for them. As such, they will not stop  this boarder crisis. And you ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until the Spring.

WATCH: Parade of Migrants Stream Across Border into Arizona

By Breitbart, March 8, 2021

A video tweeted by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) shows a steady stream of migrants marching into the U.S. from Mexico. The senator said the migrants are responding to “Joe Biden’s open border, catch and release policy.

The tip of the iceberg near Yuma, AZ as immigrants begin to flood into the US responding to @JoeBiden’s open border, catch and release policy,” Senator Johnson tweeted. “How many have COVID?”

It is not clear how many migrants marched through before and after the video ran.

Yuma Sector Border Patrol agents teamed up with Yuma County Sheriff’s Office deputies last week to disrupt another human smuggling incident where they found 18 migrants packed in a human smuggling stash house.

The agents arrested the migrants and transported them to the Yuma Station for processing. In addition, the agents arrested 29-year-old Rodolfo Rodriguez, a U.S. citizen, in connection the stash house operation.

A criminal background investigation revealed Rodriguez has an extensive criminal history. His crimes include a felony for aggravated harassment, Yuma Sector officials stated.

Border Patrol agents arrested approximately 100,000 migrants in February who illegally crossed the U.S. border from Mexico, Breitbart Texas reported.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLE: Texas Gov. Abbott Deploys Texas National Guard to Counter Biden Admin’s Chaos At The Border ‘Open Border Policies’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

What Biden’s Immigration Policies Would Do To America — America’s adversaries can’t wait for this massive betrayal.

Not unlike Donald Trump, during the Presidential campaign, Joe Biden turned immigration into a major issue.  However, unlike President Trump who promised to secure our nation’s borders against illegal entry and ramp up immigration law enforcement to protect innocent people from  criminal aliens and international terrorists, Joe Biden has promised to do the polar opposite within the first 100 days of taking office- but no one is questioning why he would do this or how this would be beneficial to America or Americans.

On January 16, 2021 the American Thinker published an important article, Joe Biden’s big amnesty plan stuns even the open-borders activists for its ‘boldness’ and ‘ambition’ that addressed many of the reasons why Biden’s plan to provide lawful status and pathways to citizenship for what has been estimated to be a  population of 11 million illegal aliens.

As disconcerting as all of the issues raised in the American Thinker article are, the article fails to make several other points that must be considered.

First of all, the number of 11 million is far, far smaller than would be the actual number of aliens who would benefit from such a massive amnesty program.

My earlier article, Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ is Bunk included this excerpt:

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should be Renamed the Overwhelm America Act” in which I noted that on September 21, 2018 Yale University reported Yale Study Finds Twice as Many Undocumented Immigrants as Previous Estimates.  That report, published just over two years ago noted:

Using mathematical modeling on a range of demographic and immigration operations data, the researchers estimate there are 22.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

It is likely that the actual number of illegal aliens currently present in the United States is significantly higher than the Yale study’s 22.1 million.  Furthermore with extravagant promises being made to illegal aliens by the incoming Biden administration, that includes a virtual end to immigration law enforcement, the floodgates will be flung open and God knows how many more millions of illegal aliens will stream across our borders.

When dealing with the number of illegal aliens who would be rewarded for violating our borders and our laws, virtually all estimates ignore the biggest factor- all legalized aliens would have the immediate and absolute right to have their spouses and every one of their minor children be lawfully admitted to join them permanently in the United States.

If, for example each illegal alien has, on average four minor children, a wildly optimistic estimate, and if 25 million illegal aliens apply for lawful status, more than 100 million immigrants who are not yet here would be permitted to enter the United States!

Imagine the impact and consequences of the massive influx of immigrants would have on our economy, on critical infrastructure, on inflation as 100 million new immigrants need such basics as food, clothing and housing.

These children would be enrolled in our already crumbling schools systems and the majority would likely not be proficient in the English language.

Today because of the COVID-19 pandemic many hospitals around the United States are overwhelmed.  Imagine the impact on our already overwhelmed healthcare system that would result from adding tens of millions of more immigrants to our population.

There would be no way for USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to interview tens of millions of immigrants and absolutely no way to conduct field investigations.

Adding to this is the Biden administration’s pick for the pivotal position of Director of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas who had been a high-rating official at DHS during the Obama administration.  He had been investigated by the Office of Inspector General for improperly approving applications for EB-5 visas because of apparent political purposes.  He was also notorious for ordering the approval of applications for a wide variety fo applications for immigration benefits at USCIS ordering that these hapless adjudications officers “Get to yes!”

I wrote about the malfeasance of Mr. Mayorkas in my article,  Biden’s DHS: Department of Homeland Surrender.

Here is an excerpt from that article:

On March 24, 2015 ABC News reported, Top Homeland Official Alejandro Mayorkas Accused of Political Favoritism Alejandro Mayorkas oversaw controversial $500,000 visa program.

The above-noted report was preceded by two ABC News reports that were published on February 3, 2015 which illustrate a clear nexus between these visas and national security

Whistleblowers: US Gave Visas to Suspected Forgers, Fraudsters, Criminals Internal documents show feds ignored warnings from FBI.”  This report began with this excerpt:

Officials overseeing a federal program that offers an immigration short-cut to wealthy foreign investors have ignored pointed warnings from federal agents and approved visas for some immigrants suspected of having committed fraud, money laundering, and even one applicant with alleged ties to a child porn website, an ABC News investigation has found. The shortcomings prompted concerns within the Department of Homeland Security that the boutique immigration program would be exploited by terrorists, according to internal documents obtained by ABC News.

It is irrefutable that Biden’s massive amnesty program for tens of millions of illegal aliens would have catastrophic and irrevocable implications for national security and that the appointment of Mayorkas would exacerbate this threat to our nation.

To amplify this point, consider this unequivocal statement from the report that was prepared by the 9/11 Commission staff, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel that incorporated specific examples of the way that the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 that killed six and injured more than one thousand victims.

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

The Britannica website furnished additional information about the World Trade Center bombing of 1993.

On December 26, 2020 Reuters reported, China to leapfrog U.S. as world’s biggest economy by 2028: think tank.

This is how this ominous report from Reuters began:

LONDON (Reuters) – China will overtake the United States to become the world’s biggest economy in 2028, five years earlier than previously estimated due to the contrasting recoveries of the two countries from the COVID-19 pandemic, a think tank said.

“For some time, an overarching theme of global economics has been the economic and soft power struggle between the United States and China,” the Centre for Economics and Business Research said in an annual report published on Saturday.

That assessment did not include the impact that a massive onslaught of immigrants would have on the U.S. economy.  It must be presumed that the Biden Administration’s immigration policies would hasten the day when the economy of China would surpass that of the United States.

Undoubtedly the leaders of the communist regime in China would be delighted if Mr. Biden gets his way, as would the leaders of Russia, Iran, North Korea and other adversaries of the United States.

The one question that should be asked by the reporters who will cover the White House once Joe Biden is sworn in is, “Why, why would you do this to America and Americans?”

Given the state of politics and supposed journalism today, I am not holding my breath to hear that question being asked of Joe Biden or his Presidential heir apparent, Kamala Harris.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

Illegal Votes From Noncitizens Likely Affected the 2020 Election, Study Says

Noncitizens likely voted at a high enough rate to alter the 2020 Electoral College tally, potentially flipping the states of Arizona and Georgia in the presidential election, according to an analysis by Just Facts, a research group.

That’s significant, and while it wouldn’t be enough to hand the election to President Donald Trump, it potentially could have made a difference. Only U.S. citizens are legally allowed to vote in federal elections.

The revised estimate, as of Monday, shows that Trump could have won 259 electoral votes if noncitizen votes were not counted. But that would likely still leave former Vice President Joe Biden with 279 electoral votes, nine votes more than the 270 needed to win.

The current electoral vote tally stands at 306 for Biden, 232 for Trump. Arizona has 11 Electoral College votes, while Georgia gets 16.


The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>


Just Facts first released an analysis on Nov. 8, five days after the election, that calculated a lower and upper estimate of the extent of noncitizen voting. That analysis determined that Trump could have won as few as 259 electoral votes—or as many as 285. The latter would have secured a second term.

However, as more mail-in votes were counted, Biden’s lead widened in states such Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Nevada.

Several major media outlets have projected Biden as the president-elect, but the Trump campaign is still litigating in several battleground states. The Trump team has not made noncitizen voting a significant part of its allegations of voter fraud.

The revised study estimated the number of noncitizen votes cast in the states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania—all of which were closely contested on election night.

It estimated that 234,570 noncitizen votes benefited Biden across seven battleground states. That estimate did not change as more votes were counted.

“Based on the latest vote counts and the upper and lower bounds of the study results, Georgia and Arizona would flip to Trump, leaving him with 259 Electoral College votes,” James Agresti, president of Just Facts, told The Daily Signal. “Under the upper bound, Nevada gets really close, with Trump down by 3,858 votes.”

With the exception of Arizona, each of the states in question appeared to be favoring Trump until the early-morning hours of Nov. 4, but began to shift to Biden over several days. North Carolina is the only state of the seven that appears likely to go to Trump.

The Electoral College will cast its vote in 50 states and the District of Columbia on Dec. 14.

The estimate is based on the percentages of noncitizens that voted in previous elections, predicated on a 2014 study by researchers at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, that evaluated rates of noncitizen voting in 2008 and 2010, Agresti said, applied only to the seven battleground states.

The Old Dominion study determined 6.4% of noncitizens voted in the 2008 presidential election and 3% in the 2010 congressional midterm elections, with 81% voting Democrat.

The rate was high enough to change the Electoral College vote count in 2008 (although not enough to swing the presidential election) and actually change the outcome of some congressional races, particularly the Senate race in Minnesota that year.

That race was decided in favor of Democrat Al Franken over Republican Norm Coleman by just 312 votes out of more than 2.86 million votes cast.

Agresti noted that illegal noncitizen voting is just “one type of fraud” that could have occurred in the 2020 election.

Asked about the proliferation of mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, he said, “That could certainly make it easier, with fewer checks and balances,” for a larger number of noncitizens to vote.

Last week, USA Today criticized the initial study claiming in a “fact check” column that rated the study as “missing context,” and arguing that it “relies on unverifiable estimates.”

The USA Today fact check largely relied on rebuttals from left-leaning sources such as the Fair Elections Center and the Brennan Center for Justice. USA Today also referenced a Wired magazine article to question the Old Dominion researchers.

Just Facts issued a rebuttal on Tuesday to what it called a “slanderous ‘fact check’” of its study:

The Just Facts study doesn’t claim to have the precise 2020 numbers, and is clear in its reliance on the Old Dominion study and other sources, such as a 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey, the Government Accountability Office, and the Social Security Administration, to apply data from past elections as the basis for the assumptions of the numbers this year.

Agresti noted that as many as 15% of noncitizens said they were registered to vote, based on survey data cited in the Old Dominion report.

The full extent of noncitizen voting is a problem, as demonstrated in past years in Pennsylvania, said Hans von Spakovsky, the manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.

“We don’t know the full extent of the problem, but we know it is a problem,” von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, told The Daily Signal. “We need to require proof of citizenship from people registering to vote.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED TWEET:

https://twitter.com/CodeMonkeyZ/status/1331368140123504640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1331579847924211712%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrrichswier.com%2F2020%2F11%2F26%2Fillegal-votes-from-noncitizens-likely-affected-the-2020-election-study-says%2F

RELATED ARTICLE: If Voters Had Known About 8 Stories Media Ignored, Trump Would Have Won, Says Media Watchdog

RELATED VIDEO: American Coup.


A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Analysis of the Biden-Harris Immigration Plan Reveals Very BIG Numbers

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire/ — The Biden-Harris campaign has issued a detailed plan for how they would carry out immigration policy if elected in November. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has analyzed the Biden-Harris policy proposals in order to project the real-world consequences they impose on Americans. The report investigates how these policies might translate into real numbers of new immigrants who could be admitted to the United States and the costs associated with what would likely be an unprecedented surge of new migration.

According to FAIR’s analysis, By the Numbers: How the Biden/Harris Immigration Platform Will Fuel a Staggering Increase of Immigrants and Population Growth, the proposals offered by the candidates could entitle a staggering 52 million new immigrants to eventually settle in the United States. This dramatic increase would eclipse the entire current foreign-born population of the country.

The lax approach to illegal immigration offered under the Biden-Harris plan – halting construction of border security fencing, eliminating detention for most illegal border crossers, scaling back worksite enforcement, and limiting deportation to only violent criminals – would also carry some large numbers with dollar signs in front of them. The likely increase in illegal immigration would run up the costs of services and benefits to illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children to more than $200 billion annually. That increase would represent a 50 percent jump in the already onerous annual costs to American taxpayers.

“Campaigns are an opportunity for candidates to present to the voters their vision on important policy matters. To their credit, the Biden-Harris campaign has done just that on immigration policy,” noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “But policy proposals are not just words on paper. If implemented, they will have quantifiable results. They can mean more legal and illegal immigration or less; greater costs to taxpayers, or less.

“It is important to get beyond rhetoric and look at the real-world implication of policy proposals if they become law, so that voters can understand the choices they are making,” said Stein.

Among the potential consequences of FAIR’s analysis of the Biden-Harris immigration plan:

  • 52 million total new legal and illegal immigrants eventually entering the country due to these policies.
  • 43 million people made eligible for family-chain migration under an extensive amnesty program.
  • At least 2.4 million new immigrants under various non-family-based migration categories.
  • At least 20 million illegal aliens residing in the country due to reduced border enforcement and detention, and highly constrained interior enforcement.

The complete analysis, By the Numbers: How the Biden/Harris Immigration Platform Will Fuel a Staggering Increase of Immigrants and Population Growth, can be found here.

ABOUT FAIR        

Founded in 1979, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is the country’s largest immigration reform group. With over 2 million members and supporters nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.

©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Non-Citizen Voter Fraud

Non-citizen voting is rampant across the country and little has been done to address this issue. Learn more about this illegal and reckless practice by checking out the latest Understanding Immigration podcast episode.

FAIR’s Spencer Raley, Preston Huennekens, and Matthew Tragesser discuss the issue of non-citizen voter fraud.

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Texas Border Patrol Agents Nab Three Muslims from Iran trying to Cross Illegally into U.S.

What could they possibly have been planning? No doubt they just wanted to do the jobs that Americans refuse to take, right?

While Leftists continue to deny that border control is a national security issue, recently a Muslim migrant from Jordan named Moayad Heider Mohammad Aldairi was sentenced to three years in prison for sneaking at least six Yemeni Muslims into the United States across the border from Mexico. Their intentions were unlikely to have been benign. Judicial Watch reported back in 2016 that police in a New Mexico border town arrested a woman they described as an “Islamic refugee” who was “in possession of the region’s gas pipeline plans.”

This was, it said, the latest in “a number of stories in the last few years about Mexican drug traffickers smuggling Islamic terrorists into the United States through the porous southern border…. A few months ago Judicial Watch reported that members of a cell of Islamic terrorists stationed in Mexico cross into the U.S. to explore targets for future attacks with the help of Mexican drug traffickers.”

But building a wall? That’s racist.

“Texas Border Patrol Agents Apprehend Three Illegal Migrants From Iran,” by Jennie Taer, SaraCarter.com, June 25, 2020 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):

Border Patrol agents stationed at the Del Rio Sector of Texas detained a family of three Iranian nationals illegally crossing the border on Sunday, according to a press release. The group is considered to be “Special Interest Aliens” by the Department of Homeland Security because of their home country’s terrorism prevalence.

“Agents in Del Rio Sector encounter individuals from countries all throughout the world,” said Del Rio Sector Acting Chief Patrol Agent Doyle E. Amidon, Jr….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jewish Federations are Promoting a Farrakhan Fan Who Told Jews to “Go F___ Themselves”

Former University of Texas Professor Would Like Israel to Be Bombed “Until the Sand Turns to Glass”

Rashida Tlaib agrees with Ilhan Omar’s call for dismantling of political system: “My sister said it best”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Pelosi Attacks Trump For Protecting American Lives

Does expansion of entry restriction for aliens strengthen or weaken national security?


On January 31, 2020 the Department of Justice issued a press release, Fugitive Wanted by Iraq for Murder of Iraqi Police Officers Arrested in Arizona began with this passage:

A Phoenix-area resident, who is alleged to have been the leader of a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Al-Fallujah, Iraq, appeared today before a federal magistrate judge in Phoenix, Arizona in connection with proceedings to extradite him to the Republic of Iraq.  He is wanted to stand trial in Iraq for two charges of premeditated murder committed in 2006 in Al-Fallujah.

The arrest was announced by Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey for the District of Arizona.

An Iraqi judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, 42, on murder charges.  The Government of Iraq subsequently requested Ahmed’s extradition from the United States.  In accordance with its treaty obligations to Iraq, the United States filed a complaint in Phoenix seeking a warrant for Ahmed’s arrest based on the extradition request.  U.S. Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued the warrant on January 29, 2020, and Ahmed was arrested the following day.

Subsequent news reports have indicated that Al-Nouri entered the United States as a refugee some ten years ago, was recently married and has been operating a driving school in Arizona.

That an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist and Iraqi fugitive, wanted for murder would enter the United States gives rise a long list of questions that includes the obvious and disconcerting question- was he here to participate in or support a terror attack?

That Al-Nouri was able to enter the United States as a refugee calls into focus the apparent failure of the vetting process that enabled him to legally enter the United States, provided the allegations made by the Iraqi government about him are true.

In point of fact, for decades, a long list of other terrorists were able to game the vetting process and the immigration benefits program to enter the U.S. and embed themselves in preparation for a deadly terror attack.

This brings us the fact that on the very same day that the DOJ announced the arrest of a suspected terrorists and international fugitive by the FBI, ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service, on January 31st, perhaps coincidentally, The Hill reported, Trump administration restricts travel from Nigeria and five other countries.  Here is an excerpt from that report:

The government will curb the ability of citizens of Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania to get certain immigration visas, according to officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department, but it is not a blanket travel ban.”Because we have higher confidence that these six countries will be able to make improvements in their system in a reasonable period of time, we did not feel it would be proportionate to impose restrictions on all immigrant and non-immigration visas,” a DHS official said.

The official cited national security concerns as the reason for the restrictions, saying the governments of the six countries do not meet requirements for information-sharing and passport security.

President Trump was expected to sign a proclamation approving the restrictions on Friday afternoon, and it will go into effect on Feb. 22.

The actions of President Trump to tighten up the vetting process for alines entering the United States are, in reality, consistent with standing law and with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

However, just hours after The Hill reported on the Trump administration’s expansion of the entry restriction for citizens of certain countries, The Hill reported, Pelosi: Trump’s expanded travel ban is ‘outrageous, un-American’ and threatens ‘rule of law’ and began this way:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Trump’s expanded travel ban after he included six other countries to the list of those that will face increased travel restrictions.

“The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,” Pelosi said in a statement.

In reality the so-called “travel ban” is actually an “entry restriction” and, far from being illegal is actually one of many authorities provide to the President of the United States to protect national security and public safety.  Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi falsely and recklessly claimed that somehow the President’s decision to use standing law to control the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a national security threat would do the precise opposite and supposedly threaten national security and the rule of law.

As I have noted in previous articles and testimony, under one of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Specifically 8 U.S. Code § 1182: (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President the President has wide-ranging authority to suspend the entry of any and/or all aliens if he determines that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  The term “detrimental to the interests of the United States” is as low a bar as could be imagined.

Here is that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

This then raises the obvious and unavoidable questions that the mainstream media would never ask Ms Pelosi, how could she claim that is it illegal for the President of the United States to impose a restriction on the entry of aliens, when long-standing federal law provides that very authority to the President?

How does President Trump’s decision to prevent the entry of aliens who might pose a threat to national security threaten national security?

In point of fact, the preface of the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel begins with this unambiguous paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

This is hardly the first time, and I suspect will not be the last time, that Pelosi and her fellow immigration anarchists will attack the President and immigration law enforcement personnel who are dedicated to protecting national security and the lives of innocent Americans.

Indeed, she has frequently alleged that the President has acted “Unconstitutionally” when he insists on securing our nation’s borders against the illegal entry of aliens and/or enforcing our immigration laws.

In anticipation of that bogus claim Ms Pelosi and her fellow radicals should read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things!

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Democrats Hate ICE Because They Hate Americans

On February 15, 2019, President Donald J. Trump declared a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States (Proclamation 9844), citing the National Emergencies Act, and ordered the diversion of billions of dollars of funds that had been appropriated to the U.S. Department of Defense for military construction. This construction is ongoing. Watch this video titled DOD lists where it will build new border wall:

According to Wikipedia:

national emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to perform actions not normally permitted. The 1976 National Emergencies Act implemented various legal requirements regarding emergencies declared by the President of the United States.

Proclamation 9844 states in part:

The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency. The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics. The problem of large-scale unlawful migration through the southern border is long-standing, and despite the executive branch’s exercise of existing statutory authorities, the situation has worsened in certain respects in recent years.

President Trump took this action because Democrats in Congress have:

  1. Failed to recognize that there is a crisis on the Southern border and
  2. Failed to fund the border wall during the normal budgetary process.

The building of a border wall was a campaign promise made by candidate Trump and remains a major goal of the Trump administration.

On December 9th, 2019 the Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus sent out an email titled “Sign on to cut funding for border detentions.” The email states:

Earleir [sic] this year, The White House declared a phony “national emergency” at the border in an attempt to get funding for his wall.

Then months later, they requested $4.5 BILLION from Congress to fund ICE, expand family detention, and lock up more vulnerable migrants.

Now, they’re trying to get an ADDITIONAL $1.4 billion to double down on their cruel immigration policies!

This is a DISASTER. But thankfully, Progressives around the country are already proposing needed cuts to The White House’s ICE budget.

Are you with us? Please, sign on today to tell Congress to CUT funding for ICE:

The Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus

What is the Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus and who are its members?

According to their website:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) consists of one United States Senator and seventy eight members of the United States House of Representatives, and is the largest caucus within the House Democratic Caucus.  Established in 1991, the CPC reflects the diversity and strength of the American people and seeks to give voice to the needs and aspirations of all Americans and to build a more just and humane society.

[ … ]

Our Caucus members promote a strong, progressive agenda, what we call “The Progressive Promise–Fairness for All”.  The Progressive Promise is rooted in four core principles that embody national priorities and are consistent with the values, needs and aspirations of all the American people, not just the powerful and the privileged.  They reflect a fundamental belief in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The four, core principles of the Progressive Promise:

1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all;
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties;
3. Promoting global peace and security; and
4. Advancing environmental protection and energy independence

Members of the Democrat Congressional Caucus include Senator Bernie Sanders and all four members of The Squad, made up of Reps. Ilhan Omar (whip), Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

It is the Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus that is driving the policies and politics of the Democrat Party.

Is there a National Emergency on our Southern Border?

The Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus, according to their email, truly believes that there is no “national emergency” on our Southern border. They call President Trump’s February 15, 2019 declaration “phony.” Yet the last two Presidents have used this Executive privilage under law to declare a national emergency.

Multiple presidents have declared national emergencies during their terms in office.

Former President Clinton issued 17 national emergency proclamations of which 6 are still current.

Former President George W. Bush declared 13 national emergencies including one after the September 11th, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Former President Barack Obama declare 12 national emergencies during his presidency including one to respond to the “swine flu epidemic in 2009.” President Trump to date has issued 3 national emergency proclamation.

If swine flu is permissible why aren’t the illegal flow of aliens, including the diseases they bring with them, across our borders a crisis?

If 9/11 is permissible why are the terrorist activities of the drug cartels crossing our borders not a crisis?

If even a single American is killed by someone here illegally then why isn’t that a border crisis?

In a TownHall.com column titled Part III: Like in Europe, America’s Broken Asylum System Enables Terrorist Infiltration Over the U.S.-Mexico Border Todd Bensman writes:

New research establishes the extent to which violent Islamic jihadists infiltrated over land borders as a new method to clandestinely reach targets in Europe, a first in contemporary terrorism history. This series explores the implications of Europe’s experience for U.S. border security.

On September 30, 2017, a Somali immigrant who initially had himself smuggled over the Mexico-California border conducted a double vehicle ramming and stabbing attack, carrying an ISIS flag, that left a police officer and four others gravely injured in Edmonton, Alberta.

But Abdulahi Hasan Sharif arguably would never have been present in Canada for his melee had he not been able to claim one of America’s most indulgent and abused immigration benefits: political asylum. Simply asking a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer at the border for asylum sets in motion a process that guarantees most foreign strangers legal entry into the United States for as long as processing takes, which can amount to years.

Read more.

Conclusion

It is clear that the Democrats care more about illegal aliens than they do about protecting the American people.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

An All-Out Immigration Moratorium, The Left’s Worst Nightmare

House To Vote On Amnesty Bill This Week

Part III: Like in Europe, America’s Broken Asylum System Enables Terrorist Infiltration Over the U.S.-Mexico Border

A New Terror Travel Tactic is Born

New Study Explains Why Islamic Terrorists Have Not Attacked Through America’s Southern Border

VIDEO: Police in Sweden speak out

Posted by Eeyore

One wonders what the long term effects of constant personal intimidation by protected groups are to Swedish police. Its likely that (similar to politics) fewer and fewer decent people will sign up. As the culture drills down to politics and then to policing, often skipping legislation altogether, so policing becomes both hopeless and thankless.

It is almost like the plan is to dismantle centuries of jurisprudence and rule of law based on individual rights and property rights and replace all enforcement with compliant ‘A Clockwork Orange’ type Dims, and eventually non-locals who have no allegiance to our history or ways of thinking. Almost like that.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Michelle Malkin: Sixty Reasons Why the U.S. Refugee Program is a Danger to Us!

Malkin’s timing is excellent because as I write this the Trump Administration is wrestling with an important legal requirement.  In the coming weeks they must decide how many refugees (if any!) will be admitted to the US in FY2020 which begins in 21 days!

Every year since the Refugee Act of 1980 was signed into law by Jimmy Carter, the President determines how many UN-selected refugees will be welcomed to a town near you.  Needless to say the refugee industry is in high gear putting pressure on the White House to get the numbers as high as they can (they are demanding 90,000) because the refugee contractors financial survival depends on high numbers!

Therefore, the timing of the release of Michelle Malkin’s new book couldn’t be better.

Here, at Breitbart, she pulls no punches and tells us about it and directs your attention to 60 reasons (60 Islamists we welcomed to become ‘new Americans’ while they came to do us harm.)

By the way, Trump can legally set the refugee ceiling for FY2020 at Zero!

Exclusive — Michelle Malkin: 60 Terrifying Reasons Trump Is Right to Reduce Refugees

Here are three facts that the most hysterical voices attacking the Trump administration’s proposal to radically reduce or freeze refugee admissions don’t want you to know:

1) They make billions of dollars off the federal refugee resettlement racket;

2) They are protected by the Open Borders Inc. media, which routinely whitewashes the gobsmacking financial self-interest of the “Let Them All In” leeches; and

3) They are never held accountable when untold numbers of the world’s most wretchedly violent and aggrieved refugees come here to sabotage the American Dream.

While left-wing religious groups, tax-exempt non-profits tied or allied to George Soros, and the amnesty-shilling Catholic Church scream “No hate, no fear, everyone is welcome here!” at the top of their lungs, American neighborhoods are being overrun by dangerous foreign criminals and jihad plotters.

David Miliband, president and CEO of International Rescue Committee, attacked the White House plan to slash refugee numbers from an Obama-era high of 100,000 to less than the current historic low of 30,000 as “inhumane.”

Is it because cutting the numbers would cut in to Miliband’s first-class travel and business lunch tabs? Malkin Truth-O-Meter: mostly likely true!

What Miliband neglects to mention in his diatribe against President Trump that his organization is one of 9 behemoth government contractors that works with the hostile United Nations and encrusted State Department social justice warriors to import thousands of new refugees every year with little input from the communities in which they are dumped. Miliband earns nearly a million-dollar salary*** and by one estimate, IRC has raked in nearly $900 million in refugee resettlement profits over the last decade. When you cut through the Statue of Liberty smokescreen of the open borders “charities,” the math is clear:

Reduced refugees means reduced cash flow.

Zero refugees means zero cash flow.

Why should taxpayers continue to see their hard-earned money siphoned away to feed the Trump Resistance Machine and Democrat Party’s Permanent Ruling Majority Project?

There are even more compelling reasons to throttle the refugee flow. According to the logic-twisting, ICE-doxxing cheerleaders at the New York Times, refugee reductions are the real threat to our nation because if we don’t keep importing hordes of Muslim translators from Iraq or Afghanistan, it would “undermine” our national security.

This is just plain ass-backwards.

Continue reading here to see the sixty reasons….

***And see my post here at RRW a few days ago about the push to admit more Iraqi and Afghan translators.   You will see the proof of Miliband’s obscene salary!

By the way, I am seeing a huge push by the contractors and their media lackeys to pressure the President at this very moment to agree to admit tens of thousands of UN-selected refugees to be your new neighbors.

***Alert***

Editor’s note:

In the near future, we will be moving ‘Frauds and Crooks’ to a new, secure hosting company. There will be times when the blog may be unavailable, but rest assured that we are not going away. Once we begin the move, it may take a few days to complete the move. Please be patient and check back.

In the meantime visit RRW by clicking here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Inconvenient Truth about Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Laws

There are two broad categories of lies that could be referred to as crimes of commission and crimes of omission.

The crime of commission is when facts are blatantly misrepresented, while the crime of omission involves leaving out relevant information, for example, when statements are taken out of context or relevant information is left out of the report.

These tactics have become commonplace and routine particularly when the mainstream media reports on the Trump administration and also when it reports on issues pertaining to immigration.

When the Trump administration promulgates policies that impact immigration, synergy kicks in and the truth is likely nowhere to be found.

Over a century ago a popular expression, the streets are paved with gold, drew immigrants to the United States who were determined to strike it rich in America.  When they got here they found that the streets were paved, not with gold, but with cobblestones that came from the cargo holds of ships that used those cobblestones as ballast.

Back then the cargo holds of the merchant ships that arrived at America’s ports were filled with cobblestones that served as ballast to keep those ships stable on the voyage to the United States.  Once here, those stones were off-loaded and all sorts of products that were made in America replaced the cobblestones in the cargo holds of those ships that returned to their original ports with merchandise to be sold.

The cobblestones were used to pave the roads of the port cities.

Nevertheless the immigrants who came to America worked hard and earned a living and built their futures in our nation.  None of them expected, nor received a “free ride.”

You could say that rather than being paved with gold, the streets were paved with blood, sweat and tears of the immigrants.

With their new-found freedom to worship and to pursue their dreams, many succeeded in building successful and happy lives in the United States.

On August 12, 2019 Business Today breathlessly published a Reuters News report under the title, “New Trump administration rule to target legal immigrants who get public assistance.  The subtitle of that report utterly twisted the truth:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled a sweeping rule on Monday that would limit legal immigration by denying visas and permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of people for being too poor

That article also included this excerpt:

The 837-page rule could be the most drastic of all the Trump administration’s policies targeting the legal immigration system, experts have said. Advocates for immigrants have criticized the plan as an effort to cut legal immigration without going through Congress to change U.S. law.

The new rule is derived from the Immigration Act of 1882, which allows the U.S. government to deny a visa to anyone likely to become a “public charge.”

That last paragraph creates the utterly false impression that President Trump had to dig back to law books published 137 years ago to find legal justification for invoking the concept of public charge to prevent aliens on public assistance from receiving lawful immigrant status.

In reality, while the notion of public charge was first codified in 1882, it has persisted in all subsequent rewrites of America’s immigration laws and, in fact, is still an element of the current Immigration and Nationality Act.

The claim that Trump’s public charge policies would deny entry to aliens who are poor is false.  This concern does not deny entry to aliens who are poor.  Historically many immigrants who were destitute have come to the United States.  However, they worked their way up the economic ladder to create the American Dream for themselves, their families and ultimately, for America.

The issue is not whether or not an alien seeking to enter the U.S. is poor but if that alien has the physical capabilities and skills and/or education to work and be self-sufficient in the United States.

In fact, Ellis Island was run by Public Health officials along with immigration officials.  Public Health officials had two concerns- that the arriving immigrants were not suffering from dangerous communicable diseases that could create a deadly epidemic and that the arriving immigrants were mentally and physically capable of working and supporting themselves and, perhaps, their families.

My earlier article, “The Left’s Immigration Con Game, referenced the extraordinary documentary, “Forgotten Ellis Island, that chronicles the true story about Ellis Island, and the story is not particularly pretty or romantic and runs contrary to the bogus mythology told by the immigration anarchists of today.

On August 16, 2019 CNBC reported, “Advocacy groups file suit to block Trump’s new ‘public charge’ immigration rule” that included this outrageous quote:

“This rule change is a direct attack on communities of color and their families and furthers this administration’s desire to make this country work primarily for the wealthy and white,” said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “Our immigration system cannot be based on the racial animosities of this administration or whether or not people are wealthy.”

More recently NBC reported, “New York, Connecticut and Vermont sue to block Trump’s public charge rule.

Once again, the Left is resorting to “Lawfare”, filing lawsuits to achieve political objectives.

The quote that appears in the CNBC article noted above from Western Center on Law and Poverty was quick to invoke race.  Let us also be clear that race, religion and/or ethnicity play absolutely no role in determining whether or not to admit aliens into the United States.

The grounds for determining admissibility of aliens into the United States is codified in a section of the current Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code § 1182.

Among the categories of aliens who are excludible are aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases, serious mental illness, are criminals, spies, terrorists, human rights violators, fugitives from justice, aliens who had been previously deported (removed) from the United States and aliens who have committed fraud in their applications for visas and/or immigration benefits.

Additionally, it establishes that aliens are inadmissible (excludible) if they are likely to become public charges.

This is how the current Immigration and Nationality Act unambiguously lays out the entire issue of public charge:

(4)  Public charge

(A)   In general

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

(B)   Factors to be taken into account

(i)  In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s–

(I)  age;

(II)  health;

(III)  family status;

(IV)  assets, resources, and financial status;  and

(V)  education and skills.

(ii)  In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

The media has accused President Trump of wanting to separate families.  In point of fact, family members may provide an affidavit of support wherein they guarantee that they will provide financial assistance to their family members who seek to immigrate to the United States.  This would help to unite families not divide them.

The issue is not about dividing families or denying poor people an opportunity to immigrate to the United States, but to protect the financial solvency of the United States, an issue of increasing concern as the national debt continues to soar into the stratosphere, by simply enforcing existing laws.

I must remind you that the imposition of American policies to address public charge laws is not new, but has a long-established history that goes back 137 years.

It is clear that the United States is unable to secure its borders.  Billions of humans around the world live below the poverty line.  If the United States was to permit all of the world’s poor to come to America with the expectation of receiving free healthcare, free education, housing subsidies and other such free benefits, our nation would implode.

As it is, our national debt has soared into the stratosphere and continues its upward trajectory.

The time has come for the Radical Left to be reminded of one of their favorite chants, the one that deals with “sustainability!”

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Is a Virginia County Inviting Non-Citizens to Vote?

Sure looks like it.  Big League Politics posted a story yesterday with a photo that may have been taken down, but was up until the 2018 Midterm elections, they say.

Sheesh, Virginia is for crooks and cheats!

Vote Virginia

If you have not heard of Big League Politics, an on-line news site that says it is much tougher than Breitbart, you need to learn about it.

Big League Politics is responsible for breaking the news about the hypocrites and the alleged sexual aggressor leading Virginia’s present-day Democrat Party.

Read what the New York Times has to say about the site. They charge BLP with promoting “conspiracy theories”—a favorite line of attack by the mainstream media against on-line conservative media.

Truth be told, it is sites like this that could ultimately finish the big newspapers.

Now here is a story from yesterday,

EXCLUSIVE: Sign At Virginia Election Office Says, ‘Responsibility Has No Borders. Vote’

A sign at the Arlington County Department of Voter Registration and Elections office in Virginia gives immigrants a clear message: “Responsibility has no Borders. Vote.”

The sign is in a public area of the office, visible to people at the counter as they are registering to vote or voting absentee. The photo is from 2016, but it was still up in the office during the 2018 midterm election. Our tipster inquired about it and was told that it’s part of a “historical display,” whereas other authorities just ignored it and said there’s nothing that can be done about Arlington County, which describes itself as a “welcoming” but not a “sanctuary” jurisdiction for illegal immigrants.

“I’m an Arlington county election officer. Arlington County VA is essentially a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants/noncitizens. These signs are posted at the Arlington County election office. Voter fraud is more likely to take place at the time of registration rather than at the polls, in my opinion,” our tipster told Big League Politics.

More here

Then be sure to visit BLP for more information including this below.

It is rare to see a site that so prominently appeals for hot news tips.

Screenshot (870)
This screenshot is at the end of the voter fraud story.  You need to go to the site for the hotlinks

What do you do?  Go around the mainstream media and tell your friends to do the same. Read as much as you can on sites like Big League Politics!  And, don’t rely on cable news!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals with images is republished with permission. The edited featured image is by Pixabay.

The Constitutionality of A Presidential State of Emergency

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

My inbox is being inundated with the question de jour: “If President Trump declares a ‘State of Emergency’ to build the wall on the border of Mexico, is that Constitutional?”

I am certain that is not the right question, or perhaps not the right way to ask it, but to ask it and answer it correctly, let’s briefly remind ourselves of America’s Constitutional structure and function.

The Constitution of the United States defines the powers for the three branches of federal government. Each of these branches are delegated specific enumerated powers that are not only limited and defined by the Constitution but also separate and distinct in their delegations. The branches of government do not share powers unless that specific cooperation is ascribed by the Constitution. For example, the power to create treaties (today referred to with the obfuscatory label — “deals”) is not an autonomous power belonging to the president but one that requires specific concurrence by the Senate.

Recall that the 10th Amendment declares that any power not delegated through the Constitution remains in the hands of the States. This is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “stewardship” doctrine that says the feds can do whatever they want as long as the Constitution doesn’t say they can’t. Federal Supremacists love this perspective. That was NOT the discussion or conclusion of the ratification debates. There are no unnamed powers floating in the ether waiting to be snatched up by the central government. Roosevelt’s Secretary of War William Taft rightly conveyed the framers’ positions, “a specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which (the federal government) can exercise because it seems…to be in the public interest…”

The specific delegations of power, as well as NON-delegations, were created thoughtfully, deliberately, with knowledge of history and human nature. The limitations of those powers involved considerable debate and study into past history and ancient governments.

Patrick Henry said in his famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #20: “Experience is the oracle of truth…”

However, it is not uncommon in the evolution of the American Republic to see the government AND the citizenry cast off the wisdom and experience enshrined in the founding documents to address some “urgent necessity.” Instead of taking the intentionally cumbersome path to do it right, Americans willingly run roughshod over Constitutional barriers because — “we have to get this done ,” or “there is no other way to do it!” These instances have slowly transmuted the Republic into the nearly limitless federal behemoth we know today.  We would be well-served to paste a banner over our televisions and computers reminding us of what William Pitt said in 1783:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

So when people ask questions like “Can the president do…?” “Can the House, Senate, or Supreme Court do…?” the first sources that must be consulted are the Constitution and the people who drafted it.  If the Constitution provides no authority for the activity, then the power does not Constitutionally reside in the hands the federal government. So more to the root of the question being asked, “Does the Constitution enumerate a power to the President to declare a state of emergency?” The short answer is No.S

Every state of emergency refers to the National Emergencies Acts as the source of its authority. So the real question is “Does the Constitution authorize Congress to alter (expand or contract) executive power by legislative act?”  The constitutional answer to this question is obviously No.  Congress cannot add powers that the Constitution has not delegated to the president nor can they take away powers that have been delegated.  For Congress to have the authority to add power to the executive branch, they would have to possess the authority to actually amend the Constitution by congressional act, which they do not.  Additionally, for Congress to delegate a power to the executive branch that has been constitutionally delegated to Congress, is a per se violation of the Constitution by crushing the principle of Separation of Powers.  James Madison, quoting political philosopher Montesquieu, was very direct with his words regarding separation of powers:

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates…” Federalist #47

Spending, war, appropriations, national defense, and naturalization are all powers specifically delegated to Congress.  For Congress to abdicate its power to the executive branch is not only not authorized by the Constitution, it is necessarily forbidden by the principle of Separation of Powers to ensure the security of the Liberty of the people.

Shockingly, this debate over states of emergency has raged for decades and nobody seems to offer the obvious correct answer — if we want the President to have such powers we must amend the Constitution.

Yet if you consider how far we have strayed and how long we have been off the path, President Trump is doing nothing out of the ordinary, he is following a long history of extra-Constitutional (aka unconstitutional) action.  We have just accepted a broken government as the norm since at least 1861 when it comes to “national emergencies.”

If you tell a lie long enough, people believe it to be truth and the lie of expanded executive power has a long history.  I think this principle is even more powerful when that lie comes from someone you like, or applies to a situation you happen to agree with.  But that lie can only operate as truth with very dire consequences, the most obvious consequence would be that the lie operates as truth not only for the people you like but also the people you don’t like.

Some claim expansion of executive power began with the George Washington administration’s response to the whiskey rebellion. Yet in this instance, Congress authorized Washington to quell an “insurrection” which falls within the constitutional authority of both Congress and President. It was Congress that then began creating “stand-by laws” to give the President powers beyond the grant of the Constitution in time of “national emergency.” They should have proposed a Constitutional amendment, not passed a law. (Interestingly, Washington later pardoned everyone who was arrested during the rebellion, if they were not already acquitted.)

The first unilateral act of a president arose when Lincoln blockaded American ports and expanded military forces without Congress.  The Congress and the courts eventually went along and this became the confirmation and justification of the President’s emergency power.  Woodrow Wilson and FDR faced similar emergency power controversies and were not thwarted by Congress.  In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson started the “Presidential Proclamation” that triggered the availability of all so-called stand-by laws for these declarations of emergency.  The process came to a head when, after Truman proclaimed an emergency in response to Korean hostilities, the same order was used to wage war in Vietnam 22 years later. 

Congress, led by Senator Church, launched an investigation. One of numerous Congressional studies in 1973 showed that the Congress had already passed over 470 statutes granting the President “EXTRAORDINARY POWERS” during time of emergency.  In an attempt to restrain and proceduralize the use of emergency powers, perhaps restrain the monster they allowed to grow, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act on in September of 1976.

In light of the fact that Congress is not authorized through Congressional act to expand delegated authority, consider these two points from two constitutional delegates:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Federalist #78 — Alexander Hamilton

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing (sic), therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.” James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787

The Constitution, as well, is not silent on this issue.  Article 6 clause 2 codifies the principles laid down by the above drafters of the Constitution when it says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Every law must be made, every federal action must be taken, “in pursuance” to the Constitution.  If that act is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, then the “Judges in every State” are NOT bound thereby.  What that means is the “National Emergencies Act,” “War Powers Act,” 8 US 1182- empowering the president to determine the admissibility of aliens, and many, many others are all unconstitutional delegations of power by Congress to the president.  Which makes them, by the terms of the Constitution AND the drafters of that document, null and void.

So the question is NOT: “If the President declares a national emergency and builds the wall, is that Constitutional?” That’s an easy question to answer, No. The question is “Will we keep pretending to live in a Constitutional Republic, while making it up as we go along?”  Other than electing a Congress that actually cares for the security, safety and integrity of the nation, there are two simple options: Amend the Constitution and have the states give the president this authority or stop pretending, get rid of the Constitution and go back to a monarchy.

ABOUT KRISANNE HALL, JD

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Has a Strong Legal Argument That He Can Declare National Emergency at Border

EDITORS NOTE: This column from The Revolutionary Act is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.