Posts

House passes bill repealing all of Trump’s travel bans and preventing future presidents from enacting similar bans

This is insane: “the No Ban Act would repeal all of Trump’s travel bans and would prevent future presidents from enacting similar broad bans based on national origin.”

So future Presidents would not even be able to ban people entering the United States from a country with which the U.S. was at war.

Note also that this bill is an attempt to end the “Muslim ban,” which does not exist. What does exist is a ban on immigration from several countries, most but by no means all of which are Muslim, that cannot or will not provide accurate information about prospective immigrants. The list of countries was devised during the Obama administration, while Biden was Vice President. Most Muslim countries have no such restrictions. To characterize this, as the hopelessly compromised Judy Chu does here, as “driven by prejudice,” is irrational and dangerous, as it casts a legitimate national security measure as hateful, a line of argumentation that would ultimately make it impossible for the United States to do anything to defend itself at all.

The suicidal, anti-American Left becomes more open about its priorities and intentions by the day.

“Trump accuses Democrats of going ‘Stone Cold Left — Venezuela on steroids!,’” by Marisa Schultz, Fox News, July 25, 2020:

President Trump Saturday lashed out at House Democrats who this week passed a repeal of his travel ban, claiming the party has gone “Stone Cold Left.”

In a morning tweet, Trump said his travel ban that initially targeted predominantly Muslim-majority countries and was expanded after court challenges was a “big win” and “successfully keeps very bad and dangerous people out of our great country.”

“The Dems have gone Stone Cold Left — Venezuela on steroids!” Trump tweeted.

The House Wednesday passed “The No Ban Act” on a mainly party-line vote of 233-183. Two Republicans — Reps. Will Hurd of Texas and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — joined with Democrats.

The legislation was hailed as a long-awaited victory for Muslim Americans and civil rights groups who had been protesting Trump’s travel ban since 2017.

But the victory was expected to be short-lived. The Senate has no plans to take it up, and Trump would surely veto the check on his authority. Trump said Saturday the legislation “hopefully, will be DEAD in the Senate!”…

The No Ban Act would repeal all of Trump’s travel bans and would prevent future presidents from enacting similar broad bans based on national origin….

“This ban never had anything to do with national security; it was always driven by prejudice,” said bill sponsor Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif….

“This is not a Muslim ban,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. “This is a legitimate travel restriction implemented for the safety of this nation.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Azerbaijanis scream “jihad” in front of Armenian Embassy in Washington, DC, Azerbaijanis attack Armenians in Moscow

Arizona: Muslima used coronavirus relief check to send money to al-Qaeda to “kill Americans”

Minnesota: Muslim migrant sends drone parts to Hizballah

Hamas Women’s Movement chief: ‘Our conflict with the Zionist enemy is a matter of faith, not of borders’

Head of UK’s Largest Muslim Charity Called Jews “Grandchildren of Monkeys and Pigs”

ISIS in India: “Keep yourselves armed at all times to never miss a chance to kill as many Kaffirs as you can”

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

Illegal Immigrant Child Rapist Released from Jail by Maryland Sanctuary County Remains at Large

A Maryland county that offers illegal immigrants sanctuary keeps releasing dangerous criminals from jail to shield them from federal authorities, most recently a man from El Salvador who raped a seven-year-old girl multiple times. Rather than honor a detainer issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), officials in Montgomery County freed the child rapist on bond recently and he remains at large. Court documents obtained by a local media outlet say the 56-year-old, Rene Ramos-Hernandez, who reportedly lives illegally in Brentwood “forced unwanted sexual intercourse” with the girl “at least ten times.”

In a statement issued this week, ICE blasts Montgomery County officials for protecting illegal aliens who commit state crimes. “Montgomery County continues the practice of not honoring lawful ICE detainers and release potential public safety threats back into the community,” said acting Baltimore Field Office Director Francisco Madrigal. “When they refuse to give adequate notification of an impending release to allow a safe transfer of custody, it shows their actions are insincere. ICE believes the best way to protect public safety is for law enforcement to work together.” The agency’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) lodged a detainer with the Montgomery County Detention Center on June 19 and authorities blew it off, instead discharging Ramos-Hernandez on June 23. ICE was notified that the illegal immigrant rapist was let go, but officers at the Montgomery County jail refused to hold Ramos-Hernandez until ERO officers arrived at the facility, according to the agency.

Ramos-Hernandez has lived in the U.S. illegally for years. In fact, the rapes occurred from 2002 to 2003, when he was in his late 30s and the girl was just seven. The victim reported the crimes to Montgomery County Police in 2017 and it took almost two years for local authorities to track down the illegal alien. On June 18 he was booked at the Montgomery County Detention Center (MCDC) in Rockville on two counts of second-degree rape and one count of sexual abuse of a minor. The next day ICE lodged the detainer.  A Montgomery County judge granted Ramos-Hernandez a $30,000 bond and now the feds cannot find him even though bail conditions include electronic monitoring and curfew. Ramos-Hernandez was also ordered to have no contact with minors, which is a joke considering authorities do not even know where he is. He provided the court with a Brentwood address and claims to work as a “remodeler,” according to court records cited in the news story. He faces up to 70 years in prison if authorities ever find him.

This case is part of a national crisis generated by local governments around the country that offer violent illegal immigrants sanctuary. Under a local-federal partnership known as 287(g), ICE is notified of jail inmates in the country illegally so that they can be deported after serving time for state crimes or making bail like Ramos-Hernandez. Unfortunately, a growing number of city and county law enforcement agencies are instead releasing the illegal aliens—many with serious convictions such as child sex offenses, rape and murder—rather than turn them over to federal authorities for removal. The lack of cooperation has led ICE to resort to desperate measures, like striking preemptively by publicly disclosing convicts, complete with mug shots, scheduled to be released before they are actually let go by police in municipalities that offer illegal aliens sanctuary. A few months ago, ICE targeted six offenders incarcerated in two Maryland counties—Montgomery and Prince George’s—notorious for shielding illegal immigrants from the feds. Most were incarcerated for sexual crimes involving children, including rape and serious physical abuse that resulted in death. A couple of the offenders were jailed for murder and assault.

Besides Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, two other large Maryland jurisdictions—Baltimore County and the city of Baltimore—shield illegal immigrants from the feds and deportation. Maryland’s Attorney General, the state’s chief law enforcement official, issued a legal memo in late 2018 defending the practice. Complying with ICE detainers for criminal illegal aliens is voluntary, the Attorney General writes in the document, and state and local law enforcement officials are potentially exposed to liability if they hold someone beyond the release date determined by state law. In 2017, Baltimore’s Chief Deputy State’s Attorney instructed prosecutors to think twice before charging illegal immigrants with minor, non-violent crimes to shield them from Trump administration deportation efforts. This summer Montgomery County took an extra step to help illegal immigrants by launching a $10 million COVID-19 relief fund. Judicial Watch sued on behalf of two county residents and a federal court ruled that the payments likely violate federal law and irreparably harm county taxpayers.

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

3 Out of 4 Convicted Terrorists Came to U.S. Legally Via Current Immigration System

Illustrating the national security threats created by the nation’s immigration system, the overwhelming majority of individuals convicted of terrorism are foreigners who entered the United States legally through various federal programs. Three out of every four convicted terrorists between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2016 are foreign born and came to the United States through our immigration system, according to a new report issued jointly by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

At least 549 individuals were convicted of terrorism-related charges in American federal courts since 2001 and 402 of them—approximately 73%–were foreign-born, the report says. Here’s the breakdown by citizenship at the time of their convictions; 254 were not U.S. citizens, 148 were naturalized and received American citizenship and 147 were U.S. born. Additionally, 1,716 foreigners with national security concerns were removed from the United States. The Trump administration stresses that figures include only those aliens who were convicted or removed and therefore do not represent the total measure of foreign terrorist infiltration of the United States. Statistics on individuals facing terrorism charges who have not yet been convicted will be provided in follow-up reports that will be made available to the public.

This DHS/DOJ report, issued this month, is disturbing enough and reveals that a significant number of terrorists entered the country through immigration programs that use family ties and extended-family chain migration as a basis for entry. Among them is Mufid Elfgeeh, a national of Yemen who benefitted from chain migration in 1997 and was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison for attempting to recruit fighters for ISIS. Sudanese Mahmoud Amin Mohamed Elhassan came to the U.S. in 2012 as a relative of a lawful permanent resident and eventually pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS. Pakistani Uzair Paracha was admitted to the U.S. in 1980 as a family member of a lawful permanent resident and in 2006 was sentenced to more than three decades in prison for providing material support to Al Qaeda. Khaleel Ahmed, a national of India, was admitted to the United States in 1998 as a family member of a naturalized United States citizen. Ahmed eventually became an American citizen and in 2010 was sentenced to more than eight years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Other convicted terrorists came to the U.S. through the controversial visa lottery program, the multi-agency probe found. Among them is Abdurasaul Hasanovich Juraboev, a national of Uzbekistan who was admitted into the country as a diversity visa lottery recipient in 2011. In 2015, he pleaded guilty to conspiring to support ISIS and in 2017 Juraboev was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Sudanese Ali Shukri Amin was admitted to the U.S. in 1999 as the child of a diversity visa lottery recipient and subsequently obtained American citizenship through naturalization. In 2015, he was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support and resources to ISIS. Amin admitted to using social media to provide advice and encouragement to ISIS and its supporters and facilitated ISIS supporters seeking to travel to Syria to join the terrorist group. Amin also helped a Virginia teen named Reza Niknejad get to Syria to join ISIS in 2015.

“The United States faces a serious and persistent terror threat, and individuals with ties to terror can and will use any pathway to enter our country,” the new DHS/DOJ report states. “Accordingly, DHS has taken significant steps to improve the security of all potential routes used by known or suspected terrorists (KST) to travel to the United States to ensure that individuals who would do harm to Americans are identified and detected, and their plots are disrupted. These figures reflect the challenges faced by the United States and demonstrate the necessity to remain vigilant and proactive in our counterterrorism posture.”

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

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

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