Posts

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.

VIDEO: President Trump’s Rally in El Paso Texas

The following is the full rally by President Donald J. Trump in El Paso, Texas as recorded by the Fox News Channel on YouTube. NOTE: President Trump comes on stage at 45:23 into the video.

According to Fox News:

President Trump begins his 2020 campaign with his first rally of the year in El Paso, Texas. Trump is expected to reiterate his demand for a border wall as Democrat Beto O’Rourke leads a protest against it at the same time.

ABOUT FOX NEWS CHANNEL

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 16 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured video is by Fox News Channel on YouTube. The featured image by TheDigitalArtist on Pixabay.

SOTU Trump A Unifying Visionary Leader

Trump is redirecting humanity. Absolutely amazing! President Trump brilliantly and expertly delivered perhaps one of the most powerful, impactful and unifying SOTU speech’s in history. President Trump was indeed “Presidential” and delivered a powerful speech reminding us of our unique and extraordinary American greatness, restoring our pride and love for country, restoring our confidence in the hope and promise that our finest days lie ahead. The President spoke of creating a new standard of living for the 21st century for an amazing quality of life, better than ever before. A sense of protection through his leadership, demonstrated success, and a clear unwavering vision for America, Trump broke down barriers of doubt, fear and concern for the challenging, dangerous, frustrating and often fearful and divisive times in which we live. This is what true leaders do. They inspire and unite for a common cause. The cause is freedom.

Trump Unites America

The MSM fake news propaganda portrayal of President Trump as a divider was debunked in one speech on February 5, 2019. Don’t take my word for it. Even CBS (no friend of the President), said most viewers approved of the speech. Republicans did tune in to watch it in much greater numbers than Democrats (as a president’s party typically does) with forty percent of Democrats approved and18 percent strongly approved. The overall numbers were 76% approval 24% disapproval. And how about both Republicans and Democrats on their feet chanting, “USA-USA-USA”. What a night!

Muhammad Ali Round One

Like the former heavy weight champion boxer, Muhammad Ali, Trump kept his distance just sort of tantalizing and jabbing away at the Democrat Socialists before him in the US House of Representatives. The President authoritatively stated that “we must reject the politics of revenge, resistance and retribution and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good.”  He went on to say that “we can bridge old divisions, heal old wounds, build new coalitions, forge new solutions, and unlock the extraordinary promise of America’s future.” “We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction. Tonight, I ask you to choose greatness.”

The President went on and reported the incredible and unprecedented accomplishments of his leadership and administration from foreign policy to prison reform and the economy. This was a long run up to the statement we were all waiting for, that being that “the state of our union is strong”. This left no room for argument.

Round Two Ali Unleashes

In round two,Trump begins to move in on the opposition party by stating that “the only thing that can stop it (our economic success) are foolish wars, politics or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way.”

The Knock Out Punch

The President reminded us that for decades past our leaders in this very hall have pledged to build a wall but never got it done Trump went on to say very definitively, “I will get it done”. Trump made it clear that the theft of American jobs and American wealth has come to an end. Trump took on NATO, NAFTA and reminded us of what “Made in the USA” is all about. He spoke of school choice and the fact that nations do not fight endless wars. Trump stated in no unmistakable terms that walls work and that walls saves lives.

Through the lives of real people in the House, he addressed heroism, patriotism, antisemitism, racial injustices and more. Then finally, he delivered the fatal knock out punch; “Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments from birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful, babies who will never get the chance to share their love and their dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth.”

“To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life. And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.”

Conclusion

We were born free we will stay free. We will never be a socialist country. The globalists and deep state have met their match. The first two years of Donald Trump in office has delivered multiple effective blows to the enemies of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But we have only just begun what will prove to be a long, long battle to restore human dignity, peace and prosperity to not only America but to the world.

The President effectively demonstrated right from wrong, Good from evil. Greatness, prosperity and abundance from devastation, destruction and despair as we see in Venezuela today. We are winning. Trump is not only gaining supoport from the Democrats, blacks, whites, and Hispanics, but is slowly but surly gaining not only respect, but support from around the globe. I have written about this and other related important subjects here on my website. Rather than close out this article looking at the challenges that are before us, there’s plenty of time to go there, let’s just bask in the glory of God in our amazing country and be proud to be Americans once again. May God bless and protect our courageous leader and President Donald J. Trump

Choose Greatness

The President’s closing remarks at the SOTU: “I ask the men and women of this Congress: Look at the opportunities before us. Our most thrilling achievements are still ahead. Our most exciting journeys still await. Our biggest victories are still to come. We have not yet begun to dream.

We must choose whether we are defined by our differences — or whether we dare to transcend them. We must choose whether we squander our inheritance — or whether we proudly declare that we are Americans: We do the incredible. We defy the impossible. We conquer the unknown.

This is the time to re-ignite the American imagination. This is the time to search for the tallest summit, and set our sights on the brightest star. This is the time to rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots. This is our future — our fate — and our choice to make.

I am asking you to choose greatness. No matter the trials we face, no matter the challenges to come, we must go forward together.

We must keep America first in our hearts. We must keep freedom alive in our souls. And we must always keep faith in America’s destiny — that one nation, under God, must be the hope and the promise and the light and the glory among all the nations of the world.

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you very much.”

Full Speech

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

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.

BREAKING: Trump Moves Towards Shutdown Over Wall Funding

President Donald Trump informed GOP leadership that he will not sign a continuing resolution passed by the Senate late Wednesday because it does not contain funding for his proposed wall along U.S. southern border, House Speaker Paul Ryan revealed at the White House Thursday afternoon.

Ryan spoke alongside House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy after meeting with Trump for nearly an hour. Ryan told reporters that Trump informed them he would not sign the bill without border security funding. McCarthy said he was optimistic that some deal could be reached within Congress ahead of the Friday deadline.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders quickly released a statement declaring:

President Trump just met with Republican Members of the House. Not surprisingly, they all feel strongly about Border Security — stopping the flow of drugs, stopping human trafficking, and stopping terrorism. We protect nations all over the world, but Democrats are unwilling to protect our nation. We urgently need funding for border security and that includes a wall.

Trump’s declaration to Ryan is the latest in a head-spinning saga of shutdown politics with a central fight for funding his proposed wall along the U.S. southern border. Democratic lawmakers insist they will give Trump no more than $1.3 billion in funding while Republicans say they need $5 billion.

Trump originally pledged to shut the government down during a fiery Oval Office meeting with Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. The president went so far as to declare he would be “proud” to do the shutdown and that it would be politically beneficial to him.

This posture changed significantly, however, when White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders broke from this hardline position Tuesday.

As she related to Fox News, “There are certainly a number of different funding sources that we’ve identified that we can use — that we can couple with money that would be given through congressional appropriations — that would help us get to that $5 billion that the president needs in order to protect our border.”

Trump’s newest declaration to Ryan appears to show he is back where he began and that shutdown may be unavoidable.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Border wall symbolizes security, not racism

GoFundMe – We The People Will Fund The Wall

Twice-Deported Illegal Immigrant Embarks on Murderous ‘Reign of Terror’ Thanks to Sanctuary Laws

GoFundMe For Trump’s Border Wall Surpasses $5 Million In Less Than Four Days

White House Condemns ‘Activism’ Of Judge Who Wants Deportees Back in The U.S.

Is Trump Blowing His Last Chance To Get The Wall?

Meadows Calls McConnell’s Short-Term Funding Bill a Gift for Democrats

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images was originally published by The Daily Caller Foundation. It is republished with permission.

ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA NIXES TRUMP AD ABOUT DANGEROUS CARAVAN: Is there really no difference between a house-guest and a burglar?

On Monday November 5, 2018, NBC news posted a report, NBC, Fox News pull Trump immigration ad, Facebook blocks paid promotion. The online article included a tweet from Donald Trump, Jr which included a supposedly racist ad.

The article began with these two paragraphs:

NBC and Fox News said on Monday morning that they would no longer air an immigration ad from President Donald Trump that has been widely derided as racially divisive.

“After further review, we recognize the insensitive nature of the ad and have decided to cease airing it across our properties as soon as possible,” said Joe Benarroch, a spokesperson for NBC’s advertising sales department.

The article included this statement:

Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, tweeted that NBC, CNN and Facebook “have chosen to stand” with undocumented immigrants.

By standing with illegal aliens, these “news” organizations that refuse to make a clear distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens have turned their backs on lawful immigrants and have harmed their reputation in the eyes of the American public.

We may be a “nation of immigrants” but we most certainly are not a nation of trespassers.

I urge you to watch the video. It simply references an illegal alien who killed two police officers in the United States and, in court, laughingly laments that he did not kill more cops! The commercial then shows the caravan heading to the United States and ends with President Trump promising to stop this invasion.

The preface of the official report 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel begins with this 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.

The local CBS radio station in New York City covered the report about the Trump ad by claiming that it reinforced negative stereotypes about immigrants.

On November 3, 2018 that local radio station (News Radio 880) posted an article, “Migrants In Caravan Respond To Trump: ‘We Are Not Killers,’” which reported on how many in the caravan were fleeing poverty in their home countries and gang violence.

One of the members of the caravan, identified as Marta Cuellos, a 40-year-old from Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, was quoted in the article:

Cuellos said she owned a cantina back home in Honduras but left because she could no longer make rent and was being harassed by police. She persuaded her 35-year-old sister to join her on the trip, and said the only thing they want is work and a better life in the United States. It’s her second attempt. She first crossed into the U.S. seven years ago but was deported last year.

The article blithely ignored that under the provisions of federal immigration statute 8 U.S. Code § 1326 an alien who is deported from the United States and then returns without authorization is committing a felony that carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. However, if that alien has committed serious crimes, the penalty for unauthorized re-entry carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. Cuellos never explained the grounds for her previous deportation, but in any event, what the media neglected to report was that she was heading to the United States to commit a crime, the crime of illegal re-entry.

Cuellos is certainly not the only alien in the caravan who was previously deported. In fact, on November 2, 2018 I was a guest on Dana Loesch’s, NRA-TV program Relentless to discuss the supposed “caravan of migrants” heading north from Central America to the United States.

My segment on Dana’s show began with an alien in the caravan being interviewed, during which he confessed to having been previously deported from the United States because he had been convicted of attempted murder in the third degree. He claimed that his purpose for joining the caravan was to come back to the United States to seek a pardon!

I recently wrote an article about the caravan with the unambiguous title, “The Threats Posed By The Impending Invasion.”

That article included this paragraph:

Nearly a year ago I wrote an article, “New York City: Hub For The Deadly Drug Trade, wherein I discussed the fact that the only reason that the Mexican drug cartels had decided to make the City of New York their central hub for their drug trafficking operations on the east coast was due, in large measure, to the sanctuary policies of New York City.

My article focused heavily on the drug smuggling activities of the Mexican Drug Cartels, particularly El Chapo’s Sinaloa Cartel, and how NYC’s “Sanctuary” policies emboldened the cartels to turn NYC into a major hub for drug trafficking notwithstanding the fact that the NYPD is the largest, best-equipped and -trained police departing in the United States.

Ironically, even as NBC and other mainstream news outlets derided President Trump’s ad and his public statements about the threats that illegal immigration pose to the United States, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the alleged leader of the highly violent Mexican Sinaloa Drug Cartel, was brought from his jail cell in lower Manhattan to the federal courthouse in downtown Brooklyn to begin the process of jury selection for his trial for a laundry list of felonies pertaining to drug trafficking and violent crimes he is alleged to have committed in the United States in furtherance of his criminal enterprises here.

The November 4, 2018 NBC reportNotorious ‘El Chapo’ Trial Begins in NYC Monday, begins with this excerpt:

He is accused of having a hand in dozens of murders, of using his drug cartel to smuggle more than 200 tons of cocaine into the United States, even pulling off running the massive operation from behind bars. That’s when he wasn’t busy escaping from jail — twice.

The almost-mythical criminal pedigree of Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who was extradited in 2017 to face U.S. drug conspiracy charges, has sparked security concerns at his upcoming New York City trial that at times have drawn as much attention as the case’s sensational allegations.

The article also reported:

FORTIFYING THE COURTHOUSE

At pretrial hearings leading to the trial, heavily armed federal officers and bomb-sniffing dogs patrolled outside. Anyone trying to attend the hearings was put through airport-style metal detectors at the courthouse entrance and at the door of the courtroom itself.

The judge also agreed with prosecutors that the jury for the case should be kept anonymous, a measure typical in terrorism or mob cases where jury intimidation is a concern.

No one’s hiding the ominous nature of the case from potential jurors. Questions for them on an initial screening form ask if they’ve ever heard of “El Chapo” along with, “Have you, or has anyone close to you, ever felt fearful of or threatened by people who you thought were associated with drug crimes?”

Jurors also will be escorted to and from the courthouse by federal officers and sequestered from the public while inside. As a reason, the judge cited prosecutors’ contention that Guzman’s cartel “employs ‘sicarios,’ or hit men, who carried out hundreds of acts of violence, including murders, assaults and kidnappings.”

There are clear and well-founded concerns that cartel hitmen or “sicarios” have been able to infiltrate the United States to do El Chapo’s bidding. It is almost a certainty that any such criminals would have entered the United States by running the U.S./Mexican border and entering the United States without inspection.

All of the cocaine and other drugs “imported” into the United States by the Sinaloa Cartel were smuggled here by various means. However, the most likely means would be to smuggle them across the U.S./Mexican border.

Yet when President Trump insists that our borders, particularly the dangerous U.S./Mexican border, need to be secured to prevent the entry of members of the drug cartels, transactional gangs and international terrorist organizations, he is accused by the media as well as by his political adversaries of creating bad stereotypes about “immigrants.”

The media and politicians who refuse to make a clear distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens are actually responsible for discrediting lawful immigrants who patiently wait their turn on line and submit themselves to scrutiny in the lawful immigration process that, each and every year, generously admits approximately one million new lawful immigrants and immediately places them on the pathway to U.S. citizenship.

As I have noted on many, many occasions for the sake of clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

The title of my recent article will serve as the summation for my article: “Trump Connects The Dots On Dangers Of Illegal Immigration.” But the Left attacks him for the picture it creates.

RELATED VIDEO: Illegal Immigration: It’s About Power – Prager University.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. The featured image by S_Salow on Pixabay.

GOOGLE VS. BORDER SECURITY: How Google employees colluded to undermine Trump’s executive orders.

On September 21, 2018 Newsweek published a disturbing article that contained infuriating revelations titled Google Brainstormed Ways To Combat Trump’s Travel Ban By Leveraging Search Results For Pro-Immigration Causes.

The Newsweek report stated that Google and their hi-tech colluders took legal action to block the Trump administration from enforcing standing immigration law.

Google, along with Apple, Facebook and other technology companies, filed a joint amicus brief challenging the travel ban, stating that it “inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation and growth.”

It is clear that to the employees and the executives of Google (and other hi-tech companies), America’s borders and immigration laws are impediments to their wealth and to the goals of their companies, rather than what they truly are, our first and last line of defense.

This set the stage for Google’s efforts days after the Trump administration first issued an executive order on immigration in January 2017, which would temporarily prevent the entry of citizens of seven countries from entering the United States, not because of their religion but because they could not be effectively vetted.

The media has repeatedly noted that the countries on the list were “Muslim Majority” countries yet many other “Muslim Majority” countries were not on that list including Indonesia, the most populist ‘Muslim Majority” country on the planet.

Google is determined to obstruct the Trump administration from enforcing long-standing immigration laws to protect America from international terrorists.

Here is how this Newsweek report began:

Google employees brainstormed ways to mitigate the effects of Donald Trump’s travel ban in 2017 by altering search functions to show pro-immigration organizations, new emails showed.

The company’s internal email chain, obtained and reported on by The Wall Street Journal, shows employees at the multibillion-dollar technology company discussing how to combat Trump’s travel ban against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Google workers talked about how they could alter their search functions to show their users how to contribute to pro-immigration causes. They also discussed how to alter the search engine so that people could easily contact their lawmakers and government agencies to ask questions about the ban, the emails showed.

Employees also suggested ways to “leverage” Google searches so that they could counter “islamophobic” search results from people looking up terms like “Islam,” “Muslim” and “Iran.”

The article subsequently claimed that the e-mails sent around by Google employees were merely a part of a “brainstorm of ideas.”

There is no comfort to be taken Google’s statement that “[o]ur processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies,” or

from the supposed assurances that Google had never manipulated or modified its search results to promote a particular political ideology or that no such manipulations or modifications were ever employed during the last presidential campaign or after the election when President Trump issued executive orders on immigration.

If members of Google’s management were not in agreement with their subordinates attempts to manipulate or modify search results, why didn’t they stop them?

The Newsweek article noted that a Google employee opined how difficult it would be to implement such changes in the search results, but was quoted as saying, “But I think this is the sort of super timely and imperative information that we need, as we know that this country and Google would not exist without immigration.”

No one in the Trump administration has suggested stopping immigration, yet the quoted Google employee implies as much.

President Trump was only attempting to make certain that our screening process is equal to the task of preventing the entry of international terrorists.  Hardly a radical or unreasonable goal!

I am certain that Google maintains strict control over the people who enter their campuses and other facilities, yet Google management and their employees oppose efforts by the Trump administration to similarly control the entry of aliens into the United States.

We must not lose sight of the fact that, no matter how the media and the immigration anarchists may attempt to spin the purpose to the Trump administration’s executive orders, in reality they were issued to protect national security and public safety by enforcing a long-standing provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The administration’s actions were, in fact, consistent with the findings, recommendations and warnings of the 9/11 Commission.

The first paragraph of the preface of the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel stated:

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.

We must start by unraveling the lies and falsehoods about the supposed “Travel Ban” which was never a travel ban at all, but actually an entry restriction that was intended to protect the United States from the entry of aliens who could not be screened, thereby preventing our CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors from halting entry of terrorists into the United States.

What was almost never noted in the media was that the official title of those executive orders was, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States.”

That title unambiguously established the purpose of the supposedly “controversial” executive order.

My July 23, 2017 article, Courting Disaster: Supreme Court Decides Against Homeland Security included two versions of the executive order that the Trump administration issued to act as the proclamation required in the section of law, provided below.  The administration made it abundantly clear that the actions were being taken to protect America and to prevent the entry of aliens who may have connections with terrorism.

Furthermore, Trump’s blocking the entry of aliens from countries associated with terrorism (and where vetting was problematic) did not emerge by executive fiat the way that Mr. Obama created DACA out of thin air.

In point of irrefutable fact, the authority for the President of the United States to block the entry of aliens is a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f) which states:

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.

An overview of the INA is provided on the official USCIS website, making clear that the current immigration laws have their foundation in the The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952.

That section of law gives the President of the United States sole authority with wide-ranging  discretion to exclude any and all aliens whose presence “…would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”  That standard sets as low a bar as could be imagined.

This was certainly not a “Travel Ban” but was a form of entry restriction that was solidly grounded in law.  Incidentally, prior administrations, such as the administration of Jimmy Carter, invoked that very same section of law when the U.S. Embassy at Tehran was seized by Iranian radicals and American officials were taken hostage.  In that instance, the aliens were citizens of Iran.

On the other hand, Google, as was reported by CNN on August 2, 2018, has no problem helping China maintain a strangle-hold on it citizens:

The Intercept reported Wednesday that Google plans to launch a search app in China that would block sensitive websites and search terms to comply with Chinese government censorship.

Perhaps Google’s management was planning to employ censorship strategies in the United States that are not unlike strategies Google is willing to employ to censor the internet in China.

In any event, the “Tech Giants” have found in the radical leftists of the United States kindred spirits who are determined to undermine national security and to extinguish freedom of speech, and with it, all other freedoms we cherish so dearly.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. The featured image that appeared in the original column is courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

INNOCENT LIVES MATTER: How America can prevent murders like Mollie’s.

Illegal alien from Mexico Cristhian Bahena Rivera

On July 13, 2018, Mollie Tibbetts was murdered when she went jogging in her hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa.  Her alleged killer, Cristhian Bahena Rivera, is an illegal alien from Mexico.

Many articles and commentaries have detailed this horrific crime.

But my goal today, in addressing the murder of Mollie Tibbetts, is to provide insight into the lessons that must be learned, from my perspective, as an experienced, 30-year veteran of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

For starters, immigration anarchists on the left decry any mention of the fact that Rivera is an illegal alien because, they claim, that doing so is an attack on all “immigrants.”

But these immoral leftists could not care less about the real carnage created by systematic failures of the current immigration system.  To them, the bodies of those who are killed by illegal aliens are simply “Speed Bumps” on their road to a borderless and defenseless United States.

Let’s be crystal clear:  Rivera is many things. I could use all sorts of terms to describe him and his horrific, infuriating murder of a 20-year-old young woman he, allegedly, committed for no damned reason. However, one name that most certainly does not apply to him is “immigrant.”

Rivera is an illegal alien.  Period!

It is the radical leftists who, themselves, refuse to make the supremely fundamental distinction between legal and illegal immigrants who come into the U.S.

But we must understand the importance of U.S. immigration laws to our nation’s borders.  National sovereignty requires nations to control the admission of foreign nationals, the same way that sensible homeowners exercise caution in deciding on whether to admit strangers into their homes.

Simply stated, Border Security Is National Security.

Consider this – guests and legitimate visitors are expected to present themselves at our front doors and ring the bell, or knock on the door, to let us know that they want to visit.

Legitimate visitors and guests certainly don’t sneak around to the back of our houses and try to climb in through a back window.

Legitimate alien visitors are required to similarly present themselves for inspection at ports of entry by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors.

A section of law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 defines categories of aliens who may be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who cannot enter our country are those suffering from deadly diseases, those with severe mental illness, and, of course, aliens who are smugglers, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, or spies.

Aliens evading inspections at our border know that he/she can be barred U.S. entry for one or more the above-noted reasons. They may have criminal histories or known ties to criminal or terrorist organizations.

But, open-border leftists and immigration anarchists use the Orwellian term “Undocumented” to describe the manner of illegal entry of aliens who enter the United States – seeking to minimize the significance of this lawbreaking.   Leftists blithely claim that these criminals “enter the United States undocumented.”  That is a grammatically incorrect, and legally false statement.  When I was an INS agent, my colleagues and I used the factually and legally accurate three-letter acronym, “EWI” (Entry Without Inspection) to describe this method of entry.

In other words, at a minimum, we could refer to these individuals by a term that served as the title of an article I wrote a while back,

Aliens Trespassing.

The term trespassing is particularly noteworthy because as I noted in that commentary,

On October 13, 2014, Schumer posted a press release on his official website that disclosed that because of the threat of terrorism, he had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on critical infrastructure and/or landmarks a federal crime with a maximum prison sentence of five years.​

Schumer’s press release stated:

Currently NYC Law Has Max. Penalty for Trespassing of Under 1 Year – In Light of Terrorism, Fed Law Should Make Loud & Clear, Particularly to Trespassers from Overseas, That Wrongdoers Should Stay Off Bridges, WTC, Statue of Liberty or Other Critical Infrastructure

Schumer said NYPD has done great work pursuing cases, but available punishments are too weak.

Here is another excerpt:

“With terror threats at a high, it must be made loud and clear to any would-be trespassers, adrenaline junkies or potential criminals that the federal government and the NYPD take trespassing on critical infrastructure and national monuments very seriously; a law that makes this a federal crime and raises the current maximum jail time from one to five years would help deter this behavior, and provide the NYPD with stronger tools to combat this disturbing trend.”​​

However, the very same Schumer and his immigration anarchist cohorts insist that aliens who trespass on the United States should be granted U.S. citizenship.

Rivera not only entered the United States without inspection but, reportedly, after illegally entering the United States, procured false identity documents to game the vetting process required to be used by employers.  While there is some controversy over whether or not Rivera’s employer used E-Verify, they apparently made use of a screening system that failed to identify Rivera as an imposter.

In other words, Rivera committed immigration fraud. The issue of immigration fraud was the focus of both an extensive article and a booklet I wrote on the topic, Immigration Fraud, Lies That Kill.

This shows why the claim made by politicians that simply making E-Verify mandatory would end the hiring of illegal aliens is bogus and naive.  In fact, it is dangerous.

Unscrupulous employers who are determined to hire illegal aliens to pay them substandard wages and work them under substandard conditions would simply hire them “off the books” so that these employees don’t appear on company records. Additionally, aliens can, as we have seen in this case, game this process by committing identity theft.

The solution is, not only require all employers to use E-Verify, but to also hire thousands of additional ICE agents to conduct field investigations and audits of employers to identify instances where employers and/or alien employees have defrauded the system to punish the employers and arrest and seek the deportation (removal) of illegal aliens, but to also deter crooked hiring practices by employers and to deter aliens from seeking to enter the United States illegally and to seek illegal employment.

There are several other “take-aways” from this case.

Let’s consider The DACA Sword of Damocles that hangs over our heads.

Rivera’s attorney initially claimed that he was legally present in the United States, and made some remarks about how he had entered the country as a child – presumably because the lawyer wants to claim that Rivera could be eligible for DACA.

Curiously, DHS officials have unequivocally stated that there are no immigration records for Rivera.

Having raised the issue of DACA, here is what we can learn from this case where DACA is concerned.  Even days after Rivera was arrested, neither the police in Iowa nor DHS appears to know when he entered the United States.

Reportedly he entered the United States without inspection between four and seven years ago.  There are no specifics as to his date of entry and, perhaps, of his true identity.

The adjudication of DACA applications would be extremely problematic. While it has been falsely sold as being about “young immigrants,” it would actually provide illegal aliens as old as 37 years of age who claim to have entered prior to their 16th birthdays to apply.

There would likely be millions of applications and only a relative handful of adjudications officers to deal with the onslaught of applications that would flood into USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) the division of the DHS that is responsible for the adjudication of all applications filed for various immigration benefits that range from providing non-immigrant aliens with authority to extend their temporary visits to change their immigration status.  They adjudicate applications for political asylum and lawful immigrant status and finally, they adjudicate applications for United States citizenship.

At present, that overwhelmed agency handles more than six million applications annually.

Adding unknown millions of DACA applications would require that the beleaguered adjudications officers to stop conducting interviews.  There would be no resources for field investigations. To keep up with the tsunami of applications the adjudications, officers would have to make decisions in minutes, not days or hours.

This would cause the adjudications system to implode and fraud would undoubtedly permeate the process.  Immigration fraud was identified by the 9/11 Commission, as being the key method of entry and embedding for terrorists.

A wall on the U.S./Mexican border would certainly go a long way to stemming the flood of illegal aliens into the United States, but it would not stop it.  Some aliens will find an alternative route to enter the United States.  When we get into our cars to drive to work, we are likely to listen to the traffic reports on the radio to find the quickest way of getting to our destination by driving around traffic, construction or accidents.

Effective interior enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States must be a part of any coordinated effort to finally gain control over our borders and protect America – and innocent Americans like Mollie Tibbetts – not from immigrants but from illegal aliens.  Enforcing existing laws will, at long last, imbue our immigration system with actual integrity.

Integrity is, of course, a term that scares the hell out of all too many of our politicians.

RELATED ARTICLE: Case of Iraqi refugee linked to ISIS exposes failed vetting system under Obama

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Migration Madness Syndrome

Europe’s Elite want their citizens to believe open borders and migration from Islamic countries will solve their need for a future workforce due to a shrinking population. I call their bluff. If they need workers, why not get them from the poorer parts of the EU–Romania, Bulgaria, Greece? This isn’t about guest workers. This is about the Left securing a voting block so they can be voted into office in perpetuity.  Islam makes for a perfect partner in their endeavor to achieve political dominance. Both conspire to tear down society and rebuild their Utopian ideal. What the Left doesn’t realize is when Islam ultimately takes power, as it tends to do, the last laugh will be on the them, just as it was with the Tudeh Party in Iran. In the end, Islam has no loyalty to Kafirs, only to Allah and Mohammed.

To understand Islamic migration today, it is imperative to understand the concept of hijra. The hijra dates to the time of Mohammed when he left Mecca and moved to Medina where he became a warlord and politician. Mohammed’s migration, or hijra, is so important to the success of Islam that it is the basis for the Islamic calendar.

Hijra is a form of soft jihad and is quite effective for spreading Islam.

Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki stated, referring to doctrine: “Jihad today is obligatory on every capable Muslim…it is your duty to find ways to practice it and support it.” He then lists 44 ways to support jihad. In #36 Preparing for Hijrah, al-Awlaki quotes Mohammed: “Hijrah does not stop as long as there is an enemy to fight”.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind, said, “the practical way to defeat America is through immigration and “outbreeding non-Muslims”.  These jihadists are not creating new ideas. They are repeating 1400 year old doctrine.

The bottom line: Hijra is a tactic to pave the way for Sharia.

Ultimately, the danger of migration is not that there will be too many unemployed workers draining welfare dollars from the state, but it’s that Sharia supremacists will keep Islamicizing the EU.  These guest workers aren’t going home. They have a religious duty to stay and fulfill the doctrine. Their loyalty is to Allah and Mohammed, not to the Kafir countries of the West. History has shown that once a nation is invaded by Islam, it will become 100% Islamic, unless driven out.

What is the solution?

We must wake up to the true nature of the problem. The doctrine of the Left says we aren’t nice enough, we need more programs, we need to integrate migrants better–the fault is always ours. I happen to agree that the fault is with us, but it is due to our ignorance, not our lack of virtue.

Once we understand the problem is the Islamic doctrine, then we can make proper plans for solutions, like changing migration laws, citizenry laws, instituting zero tolerance for Sharia, etc. In the meantime, churches and everyday people need to push back. We can’t wait for the government Elite.

Society can use social pressure like a weapon. We need to make fun of Sharia, use shame and humor. Islam reacts to shame and humor like a weed to poison. When a society can make Mohammed jokes, we win. It’s that simple. As soon as we become a citizenry of blasphemers, the problem solves itself.  This is key: to reverse Islamization, it must entail mass civil disobedience against censorship and oppression of freedom of thought, not just a few brave souls.

We must never give up. We must come out of the closet and face our fears. We can prevail and must because our civilization and freedoms are too precious to lose. Stand up Europe. Do not let North Africa and Arabia be your destiny.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Fiscal Cost of Resettling Refugees in the United States

Minnesota Somalis: You’re old and we are taking over

RELATED VIDEO: To learn more about hijra, watch video Hijra: Islamic Migration

We Can Thank a Flawed Jury System for the Steinle Verdict

Much has been said about the acquittal of felonious invader Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the killer of young Kate Steinle, who died in her father’s arms. Yet while most of the focus has been on “sanctuary cities” — a euphemism for treasonous, lawless cities — there perhaps has been no scrutiny of the people whose minds are too often a sanctuary from knowledge and reality: modern jurors.

The problem stems from “The Error of Impartiality,” which is the title of an essay on this very subject. For what is often perceived in jurors as fairness is just fecklessness, of the moral variety.

When choosing jurors, pains are taken to dismiss people with preconceived notions about the case. But consider: If in question is a high-profile matter such as the O.J. Simpson or Steinle case, what kind of person would know nothing about it and/or have formed no opinions? Does this reflect impartiality or just indifference?

Assuming such a person makes the ideal juror is like supposing that someone still undecided the day before a high-profile election is surely a better voter than someone who reads the news and formed an opinion early on. An undecided individual may be a better voter in the particular (relative to a given wrongly decided voter), but in principle this supposition simply is untrue. G.K. Chesterton explained the matter brilliantly in the aforementioned essay, writing:

What people call impartiality may simply mean indifference, and what people call partiality may simply mean mental activity. It is sometimes made an objection, for instance, to a juror that he has formed some primâ-facie opinion upon a case: if he can be forced under sharp questioning to admit that he has formed such an opinion, he is regarded as manifestly unfit to conduct the inquiry. Surely this is unsound. If his bias is one of interest, of class, or creed, or notorious propaganda, then that fact certainly proves that he is not an impartial arbiter. But the mere fact that he did form some temporary impression from the first facts as far as he knew them — this does not prove that he is not an impartial arbiter — it only proves that he is not a cold-blooded fool.

If we walk down the street, taking all the jurymen who have not formed opinions and leaving all the jurymen who have formed opinions, it seems highly probable that we shall only succeed in taking all the stupid jurymen and leaving all the thoughtful ones. Provided that the opinion formed is really of this airy and abstract kind, provided that it has no suggestion of settled motive or prejudice, we might well regard it not merely as a promise of capacity, but literally as a promise of justice. The man who took the trouble to deduce from the police reports would probably be the man who would take the trouble to deduce further and different things from the evidence. The man who had the sense to form an opinion would be the man who would have the sense to alter it.

Chesterton also noted that the logical outcome of our “impartiality” standard is that a “case ought to be tried by Esquimaux, or Hottentots, or savages from the Cannibal Islands — by some class of people who could have no conceivable interest in the parties, and moreover, no conceivable interest in the case. The pure and starry perfection of impartiality would be reached by people who not only had no opinion before they had heard the case, but who also had no opinion after they had heard it.”

The essay is pure gold, and I strongly recommend you read the whole thing.

I once wrote a piece titled “Why Most Voters Shouldn’t Vote,” and a corresponding principle may be that most jurors shouldn’t sit on juries. People so apathetic that they couldn’t be bothered to try and determine reality on high profile candidates or cases probably won’t transform, magically, into sagacious sleuths of reality upon entering a ballot or jury box. Apathy is not an asset, and ignorance is not a virtue.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLES: Kate Steinle Deserves Better Than Democrats Opposing Deportation of Illegal Aliens

DANGER ZONES: ICE List of Counties harboring Illegal Aliens includes Alachua County, Florida

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement published the list below of counties that have refused to detain criminal illegal aliens.

ICE Declined Detainer Outcome Report – Jan 28 to Feb 3 2017[1] by JessicaDurando on Scribd

Breitbart’s Ben Kew in his column Trump Publishes 1st List of ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Protecting Illegal Aliens reports:

In an attempt to increase pressure on sanctuary cities, the Department of Homeland Security has published its first weekly list of all 118 localities refusing to cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Each week, the list will publish every detention request rejected by local jails — detailing the relevant agency, the status of the immigrant, and the charges they are facing.

The first report was published this Monday, listing 206 cases in which illegal aliens were arrested and consequently released from jail without charge, despite recommendations from the Immigration and Crime Enforcement agency (ICE) to detain them for at least 48 hours.

The cases listed took place between January 28th to February 3rd, Donald Trump’s second week in office.

In his executive order signed January 25th designed to properly enforce immigration policy, Trump said regular lists were necessary to better inform the public “regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions.”

Read more…

Kew notes, “A poll conducted by the University of California Berkeley in January found that in the state of California, where sanctuary cities are particularly prominent, 74 percent would like to see them abolished.”

In our column Forget Sanctuary Cities — Florida has 7 Sanctuary Counties we reported:

Well San Francisco has nothing over the Sunshine State. Florida is home to seven “sanctuary counties.” The sanctuary counties are: Pasco, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Hernando, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach.

These counties are perfectly located along Florida’s East and West coast lines to allow illegal felons, like Francisco Sanchez, to enter with ease.

Sanctuary-Cities-Map

Map of sanctuary counties (yellow) and cities (red) in the United States. Map courtesy of the Center for Immigration Studies.

shrf-darnell (1)

Sheriff Sadie Darnell

Harboring illegal aliens is wrong and endangers Florida’s citizens. Alachua County is now another danger zone in the Sunshine state.

Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell has a constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the State of Florida and federal laws concerning illegal alien detention. Not to do so is simply wrong.

If Sheriff Darnell can break the law then anyone can.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sanctuary policies ‘led to’ brutal, bathroom rape of 14-year-old schoolgirl

EDITORS NOTE: It was San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi who allowed five time deported illegal alien Francisco Sanchez to kill helpless, unsuspecting Kate Steinle.

Will Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam, anti-immigration and NExit party win on March 5th?

geert wilders party logo

Geert Wilders

The general election in the Netherlands is less than five weeks away on March 15th, 2017. Geert Wilders’ political polls show his Freedom Party (PVV) has a lead in weekly political polls of 30+ seats over the Liberal party’s (VVD) 26 seats of the current ruling coalition of current PM Mark Rutte in the Hague Parliament, the tweeder kamer, with 150 seats.

Wilders broke with the VVD in 2004 to form his anti-Islam, anti-immigration and NExit party after the assassination in 2002 of Rotterdam Mayor Pym Fortuyn and the November 2004 murder by a Dutch Moroccan Muslim extremist Mohamned Bouyeri of Dutch Film maker Theo Van Gogh for producing a short film, “Submission” scripted with ex pat Somali Dutch VVD politician, now an American, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, on the streets of Amsterdam.

Wilders won an acquittal in 2011 in an Amsterdam district court case on charges of hate speech for his anti Political Islam stands. In 2016 he was convicted without penalty in a show trial brought by Hague prosecutors because of his 2014 local campaign remarks about “fewer and fewer” Moroccans, a reference to the Muslim minority involved with crimes in Holland.

If Wilders can spurt to win the vicinity of 40 seats in the general election a likely impasse could occur about formation of a new ruling coalition with Wilders at the head as PM. That is reflected in the twitter war between Wilders and current PM Mark Rutte. The latter contends that the VVD has ZERO chance of joining such a coalition headed by Wilders. Wilders contends that Rutte can’t dismiss upwards of 2 to 2.5 million Dutch voters that the Freedom Party could receive in the March 15th general elections.

Wilders , unlike Trump believes that taking back border controls rather than building walls will stop the refugee migrant influx in Holland.

60 000 refugees and migrants poured in during the current crisis, forcing the country to open up closed prisons to house them temporarily.

Go Geert Go!!

Anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders said on Sunday (12 February) that promises by other parties not to work with him would be quickly forgotten if, as exp
TOPBUZZ.COM

Who is Ira Madison III and why does he hate Asian children and America?

Daily we see the fringe become more fringe. The latest example is a MTV News reporter named Ira Madison III. Madison, who is black, hates America, loves Obama and takes cheap shots at the grandchild of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions. Katie McHugh from Breitbart reports:

Culture writer for MTV News Ira Madison III attacked Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions and his Asian-American granddaughter as a “prop” to distract from his “racism.”

ira-madison-iii1

Ira Madison III (left).

In the article “Ira Madison III: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know” by  from Heavy.com describes Madison’s background:

Madison was named in the piece as a “young activist-writer” who was “deeply entrenched” in “identity politics.”

[ … ]

According to his LinkedIn page, Madison is a gradaute [sic] of Loyola University of Chicago where he studied theater and NYU where he studied dramatic writing.

[ … ]

When asked about racism in America, Madison said, “I think at this point, the world has changed so much where I don’t afford people the right to have “different perspectives” if they’re damaging to others. Like, if you’re an asshole and homophobic and racist now, you were the same when you were younger and you knew it was wrong then.”

[ … ]

The day after Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States, Madison posted this throwback photo on Facebook. Madison regularly posts photos of the first family on his photostream. A few days later on his MTV.com column, Madison wrote, “This week, all of America needs to get deleted. You made Barack Obama utter the words “President-elect Donald Trump” and I will honestly never forgive my country for this.”

Here is Madison’s tweet, which has since been taken down:

iramadison-tweet-sessions-granddaughter

Can you feel the hate and anger in this black man for an innocent Asian child?

ira-madison

Ira Madison III

After taking down the above tweet Madison attempted to justify himself by Tweeting, “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans https://t.co/sZitqzLBS4.” The link is to a Think Progress article about a 2013 U.S. Senate committee meeting on comprehensive immigration reform, of which Senator Sessions was a committee member. When you go to the link you find that Senator Sessions was not arguing to discriminate against Asian Americans at all. Rather Senator Sessions asked the President of the Asian American Justice Center Mee Moua “if a country should legitimately decide that it wants to admit one productive family member, but not another, less motivated individual.” Sessions noted:

It’s perfectly logical to think there are two individuals, let’s say in a good friendly country like Honduras. One is a valedictorian of his class, has two years of college, learned English and very much has a vision to come to the United States and the other one has dropped out of high school, has minimum skills. Both are 20 years of age and that latter person has a brother here. What would be in the interest of the United States? …

Clearly it would be in the best interest of the United States to only grant a visa, work permit or citizenship to those who benefit the host country, in this case the United States. Immigration is a key issue for Americans and impacts the economy, jobs, security of the homeland, education, public policy and the criminal justice system.

As the U.S. Attorney General Senator Sessions will be dealing with law and order issues and enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Laws that make it illegal for someone to come here without permission.

That is something Madison, Obama, Democrats and others fail to understand. When you lose elections, just as when you break the law, there are consequences.

Congressman Lou Barletta’s Bill to Defund Sanctuary Cities — Getting the new year off to a great start

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:

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.

President Trump’s Immigration Challenge: To undo Obama’s catastrophic damage

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.