Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer Commentary: Terror Attack in France Is a Fresh Reminder of Why We Need the Wall
The terrorist attack on a French Christmas market should serve as a wakeup call to America. The stakes are too high for Congress to keep playing political games with border security. We need to build the wall.
Americans awoke Wednesday to yet another awful reminder that we still live in a world beset with radical Islamic terrorism. In the night, the crack of gunfire and the all-too-familiar cry of “Allahu Akbar” rang out in a French Christmas market. At least four people who came out to enjoy Strasbourg’s famous Advent traditions are dead.
As President Trump so astutely noted in the aftermath of the attack, it is impossible to separate national security and resistance to Islamic terrorism from immigration policy and border security. If we hope to avoid the kind of terror that has become part of daily life for the people of France, we must avoid Europe’s mistakes and get our border under control as soon as possible. For that, we need Congress to approve funding for President Trump’s border wall.
Sadly, incidents like the Strasbourg shooting have become practically routine in France, and this crisis was imported through decades of terrible immigration policy. The Strasbourg killer, Cherif Chekatt, was born in France of Moroccan parentage. Once a petty criminal, he appears to have been radicalized by France’s vibrant jihadist community over the course of his numerous stints in prison.
France was once again reminded on Wednesday of the great need to assimilate foreigners. Once Islamists establish a foothold in a country — once a jihadist community and its apparatus of radicalization are planted — it is exceedingly difficult to control them. Like thousands of others, Chekatt was on France’s terror watch list, but that didn’t stop him from killing. There are simply too many names on the list for French authorities to keep track of them all.
To avoid France’s predicament, we must have a firm understanding of exactly who is entering the United States. At the moment, we don’t even have reliable data on the number of illegal immigrants residing in our country.
We simply don’t know how many terrorists might be among the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who slip through the border every year despite the valiant efforts of our overstretched Border Patrol agents. What we do know, however, is that terrorist organizations are targeting the southern border as a promising means of entry. As things stand now, the Department of Homeland Security is already stopping an average of ten known or suspected terrorists from entering the United States every day.
President Trump is absolutely correct: we must know exactly who is crossing our border and prevent those who mean to do us harm from setting up shop in our country like they have in France.
To do this, we must have the border wall funding that Democrats are currently holding hostage in their budget showdown with the President.
MIGRANT CARAVAN DEMAND: GIVE US EACH $50,000 OR LET US IN
At least one migrant caravan group is reportedly willing to go home — if the U.S. pays each member $50,000. Otherwise, they are expecting immediate entry to the U.S., according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
According to the group’s spokesman, the $50,000 figure would be a nice tidy sum with which to start a new business in Honduras. They also want deportations to end and speedier service from the immigration authorities.
“It may seem like a lot of money to you,” Ulloa told the Union-Tribune. “But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras.”
Ulloa presented a letter to the consulate that both criticized U.S. involvement in Central American politics and yet demanded that American forces foment a coup d’état against Honduran President Orlando Hernandez. U.S. authorities are supposed to respond to the demands within 72 hours.
A second group of migrants came to the consulate later in the day. They reportedly complained as well about slow service from immigration authorities and suggested at least 300 migrants be processed each day at the San Diego border facility.
In a letter, the second group of migrants also blamed the U.S. for the migrant crisis.
“In the meantime, families, women and children who have fled our countries continue to suffer and the civil society of Tijuana continue to be forced to confront this humanitarian crisis, a refugee crisis caused in great part by decades of U.S. intervention in Central America,” the letter reads.
As President Donald Trump makes border security the reason for a potential government shutdown, he has been stymied by a federal court that ruled it unconstitutional to deny asylum seekers refugee hearings. There have been multiple reports that the migrants are carrying various infectious diseases and the Department of Homeland Security has warned that there are 500 criminals among the migrants.
America’s National Sovereignty Threatened: Congress Must Fund A Wall That Secures Our Southern Border
In their legislation, Congress must address three critical areas.
Provide a minimum of $5 billion for President Trump’s border wall. Unlike the $1.6 billion that Congress passed in March, these funds must allow the president to actually engage in new construction and planning. To be clear, funds that merely allow for repairs, planning or pedestrian fencing—and do not allow for new construction of President Trump’s wall prototypes—do not constitute funding a border wall.
Provide more funds for the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. The U.S. border patrol is facing continued and growing illegal crossings, with over 50,000 apprehensions this fiscal year alone. As current events have demonstrated, adequate funding for both manpower and resources are critical to the safety and security at the border, but also to our national sovereignty. Our legal immigration system, the rule of law, and the nature of U.S. citizenship is at risk if we do not control the flow of illegal immigration by securing the border.
Provide funds for more judges at the border. Under President Obama, the legal threshold for claiming asylum was lowered to one of “credible fear.” As a result, asylum cases have shot upward, many times taking years to process. In the meantime, illegal entrants claiming asylum are released into the interior of the country, where they await legal proceedings for which they may or may not show up. More judges at the border will allow for faster processing times, allowing genuine asylum claims to be identified and prioritized and inadequate asylum claims to be efficiently handled.
President Trump is using all of his authorities to address this crisis at the border. But only Congress can fund and execute on critical policies like a border wall, resourcing for Customs and Border Patrol, and an increased number of judges. We urge them to act on these three issues before they adjourn for the year.
Transgender Members Of The Caravan Are Having A Hard Time Finding Sponsors In The US
TIJUANA — Attorneys for transgender members of the caravan are rushing to find people willing to house them in the United States while their asylum cases play out in court, in hopes that the would-be immigrants won't have to wait for months in detention for their cases to be decided.
A quick release from detention for transgender members of the caravan — who, of all the caravan members, likely have the best chance of meeting US standards for asylum — depends on their having a sponsor: someone willing to house and support them financially after they're released.
It's turning out to be a difficult task, according to Allegra Love, an attorney and executive director of the Santa Fe Dreamers Project, which is taking on the transgender women's cases, which Love said described as a "slam-dunk."
"They have great asylum cases, and there's no need for them to be detained," Love told BuzzFeed News. But finding sponsors so they can be released is difficult. "You really are asking a lot of someone," Love said. "You're dealing with a group of people who need a lot of support and care. ... It's not like adopting a kitten — you're taking an actual human being with individual needs."
There were 22 transgender women in the spring caravan and all but one — a woman who died after being in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody — were released to a sponsor, Love said.
The need to get the transgender people out of detention quickly is even more urgent in light of new information released about the death of Roxsana Hernández Rodriguez, the trans woman who traveled with the spring caravan and died in ICE custody after turning herself in for asylum, Love said. An independent autopsy released this week found that Hernández appeared to have been physically abused before she died due to complications from HIV.
The Daily Beast, which was the first to report on the results, said that the autopsy found Hernández had bruises on her hands and abdomen, evidence of blunt-force trauma “indicative of blows, and/or kicks, and possible strikes with a blunt object.”
Hernández, 33, died at a hospital in Albuquerque after being held at the Cibola County Correctional Center, a federal prison facility in Milan, New Mexico, that CoreCivic, one of the largest private prison companies in the US, operates under contracts with ICE. The transgender women in this caravan will all likely be sent there because the facility has a dedicated trans pod.
Inadequate medical care, poor mental health services, and the liberal use of solitary confinement as punishment are common complaints that Love said she hears from recently released immigrants.
Caravan migrants begin to breach border as frustration with slow asylum process grows
At least two dozen Central American migrants -- who claim they're disillusioned and frustrated with the asylum-seeking process -- breached the U.S.-Mexico border Monday just before dusk by scaling a 10-foot metal fence, witnesses say.
They were observed using blankets and ropes to help climb over the structure separating California from Tijuana, where thousands of migrants have been gathering in recent days. Other migrants managed to squeeze through a section of the fence on the coastal city's beach, according to Reuters.
Some migrants reportedly tried to escape capture by the U.S. Border Patrol, but most were caught. It remains unclear Tuesday how many of the migrants -- if any at all -- managed to escape detention.
Karen Mayeni, a 29-year-old Honduran mother with three children between six and 12 years old, told Reuters she was only observing others penetrating the border and was “waiting to see what happens.” The woman will decide her family's next action “in a couple of days,” she said.
About 90 minutes later, however, she and her children were seen on the U.S. side of the border, Reuters reported.
The migrants in Tijuana are part of the numerous caravans that traveled through Mexico in an effort to enter the U.S. – some planning to do so illegally, others legally by applying for asylum – citing issues such as rampant violence and sluggish job markets in their home countries.
But the plans were curbed by the Trump administration’s decision to send troops to protect the border from illegal entry and impose a new policy that requires every migrant seeking asylum to remain in Mexico, where their case will be heard. That rule was struck down last month by a federal judge.
Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households
A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.
In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.
The Center for Immigration Studies said in its report that the numbers give support for Trump’s plan to cut non-citizens off welfare from the “public charge” if they want a green card that allows them to legally work in the United States.
“The Trump administration has proposed new ‘public charge’ rules making it harder for prospective immigrants to qualify for lawful permanent residence -- green cards -- if they use or are likely to use U.S. welfare programs,” said CIS.
“Concern over immigrant welfare use is justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank.
The numbers are huge. The report said that there are 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare.
SNOPES, FACT-CHECKER FOR FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE, BOTCHES FACT CHECK
Fact-check website Snopes botched a fact-check of a viral, but wildly misleading meme.
Snopes claimed that the “general idea” of the meme was “correct.”
Both Facebook and Google give Snopes preferential treatment on their sites.
Snopes, a left-leaning fact-checking website given preferential treatment by Facebook and Google, botched its fact-check of a viral meme that was mocked within political circles for spreading false information.
The meme showed a picture of President Donald Trump with Republican lawmakers and members of his administration following the House’s vote to repeal Obamacare in 2017. Thirty-three people in the photo Snopes used had a red X over their face, though it cropped out a 34th person included in others.
The caption accurately claimed the photo was taken at the White House following the House’s Obamacare vote, then falsely claimed that “Everyone with an X has since been voted out of Congress.”
Political reporters mocked the meme’s inaccuracies after Nicholas Kitchel, a former Hillary Clinton campaign staffer, shared it in a Nov. 17 tweet.
Politico reporter Jake Sherman observed that the meme “is actually more incorrect than correct.”
But Snopes fact-checker Bethania Palma, a former writer for liberal websiteRaw Story, fact-checked the meme three weeks later and claimed it was accurate.
Palma rated it “true” that “The Congressional seats of almost three dozen Republicans who voted to repeal Obamacare were lost to Democrats in 2018” — a different claim than what the picture alleged, much less its “primary” claim.
“In the meme, red ‘X’ marks were drawn through the faces of 33 lawmakers who purportedly were rejected by voters in the 6 November 2018 midterm elections,” Palma wrote.
Both that claim and Palma’s summary of it were inaccurate.
Not everyone in the photo with an “X” over their face was a lawmaker — a fact left out of Palma’s fact-check. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma, for example, had an “X” over her face even though she’s not an elected official.
Moreover, many of the lawmakers who did have an “X” over their face won re-election.
“Although memes are frequently grossly inaccurate, this one got the general idea correct,” Palma nevertheless wrote. “By our count, at least 34 Republican legislators who voted to repeal or partially repeal Obamacare will not be returning to Congress when the new session begins in January 2019.”
Despite Palma’s framing, the meme didn’t claim that 34 lawmakers who voted for Obamacare weren’t returning to Congress in January — it falsely claimed that “Everyone with an X has since been voted out of Congress.”
After TheDCNF reached out to Snopes for comment, the website edited its article to claim “the persons actually pictured in the accompanying photograph are difficult or impossible to identify.”
TheDCNF’s own fact check, however, successfully identified and reviewed all 34 people.
GOOGLE SEARCH SAYS REPUBLICAN WOMEN ARE ‘ENABLERS’
Republican women are “enablers,” according to Google search results.
Google’s search results for the National Federation of Republican Women, the nation’s largest Republican women’s group, displayed the organization’s name instead as the “National Federation of Republican Enablers.”
Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group doesn’t contain that description.
Wikipedia’s edit history shows on October 19 someone replaced the word “women” in the group’s name with “enablers.” The change lasted about five hours on Wikipedia before it was reversed.
“There are tens of millions of American women who believe in the Republican Party’s values of individual liberty, personal responsibility and limited government,” NFRW President Jody Rushton told TheDCNF in a statement.
“The notion that women aren’t smart enough to think for themselves and have varying political views is not only offensive, but it’s also misogynistic.”
Google did not immediately return an email seeking comment.
‘DEEPLY OFFENSIVE’: LEAKED VIDEOS SHOW GOOGLE LEADERSHIP REACTING TO TRUMP’S VICTORY
A leaked video published Wednesday night appears to show several senior Google executives holding a large staff meeting following the 2016 election to reckon with President Donald Trump’s victory.
In the video, Google’s executives speculate about what motivated people to vote for Trump, as well as the role the company can play in informing people about the election. Executives also appear to discuss ways to defend what they called good values.
“We have no idea what direction this country will take… It’s a period of great uncertainty… especially for immigrants or minorities [and] women,” co-founder Sergey Brin told Google employees. “As an immigrant and a refugee, I certainly find this election deeply offensive, and I know many of you do too.”
The video features co-founders Larry Page and Brin, VPs Kent Walker and Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and CEO Sundar Pichai.
One executive, Porat, got emotional while talking about the election’s results and promised employees that company will “use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values.”
One employee can be seen asking Google what it can do about “misinformation” and “fake news,” to which Pichai said that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to remedy that problem. Walker mirrored much of his colleagues’ position.
He told one audience member at the so-called TGIF (Thank God It’s Friday) meeting that Google must ensure the Trump-era does not end in “a world war or something catastrophic … and instead is a blip, a hiccup.” Google emphasized in a press statement a distinction between the company’s employees’ personal views and the products they create.
“At a regularly scheduled all-hands meeting, some Google employees and executives expressed their own personal views in the aftermath of a long and divisive election season,” the company said in a statement published after the leaked video appeared online.
“For over 20 years, everyone at Google has been able to freely express their opinions at these meetings. Nothing was said at that meeting, or any other meeting, to suggest that any political bias ever influences the way we build or operate our products,” it added.
“I think they already have,” Trump told The Daily Caller in an exclusive Sept. 5 interview, responding to questions about whether Google and Facebook are interfering in elections He added: “I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton.”
“Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued.
EXCLUSIVE: GOOGLE EMPLOYEES DEBATED BURYING CONSERVATIVE MEDIA IN SEARCH
Google employees debated whether to bury The Daily Caller and other conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election
“Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years,” one engineer wrote in a thread that included a Google vice president
Google employees similarly sought to manipulate search results to combat Trump’s travel ban
Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.
The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.
Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.
“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.
Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.
“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.
Republicans Call for Investigation Into Google After Bombshell Report
by Evie Fordham
A Republican lawmaker and lawmaker-elect called for an investigation of Google Friday morning after Thursday’s revelation that the tech giant’s employees debated burying conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election.
Republican Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar called on the Department of Justice to investigate Google, and Republican Missouri Sen.-elect Josh Hawley called for Google execs to explain themselves “under oath.”
“So what do we have here? Looks like a monopoly scheming to use its market power to silence news [and] viewpoints it doesn’t like. Starting to see a pattern here,” Hawley wrote on Twitter Friday. “Google execs need to explain what is going on here. Under oath.”
“Google has a virtual monopoly as far as search engines go. It’s past time @DOJPH [sic] investigate this and it’s time Congress evaluates Google’s suppression of ideas, content, discussion,” Gosar wrote on Twitter Friday morning.
Internal Google communications obtained by TheDCNF revealed Google engineer Scott Byer wrote the following Nov. 9, 2016, while discussing President Donald Trump’s election:
How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed. … Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years — demographics will be on our side.
“Today the company accounts for nearly 90 percent of worldwide search traffic. … Unfortunately, recent reports suggest Google might not be wielding its vast power impartially,” committee member and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a Wednesday press release.
Republican lawmakers criticized Pichai for skipping a Sept. 5 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on social media and foreign election meddling. Facebook and Twitter executives testified, and an empty chair with a nameplate that said “Google” sat where the company’s representative would have been.
Judges are now openly treating illegal immigration as the new civil rights movement
What does it really mean to have a government shutdown? It means that the federal government does not perform its first duty of securing our nation. Our government shutdown continues as the unelected federal judiciary continues its bloodless coup against our national sovereignty, history, and tradition, and the legislative and executive branches do nothing to stop it.
Any federal court can now declare that freedom of speech and religion don’t exist for Americans, yet there is a First Amendment right to immigrate and to help other people illegally violate our sovereignty. Any federal court can say that states and even the federal government can’t ban sanctuary cities, but they are free to clamp down on gun rights of Americans. Our Constitution is twisted beyond recognition, yet we are told this is the law of the land. How much longer can we survive under the Orwellian legal profession? Moreover, if we keep agreeing to such a system, then even a border wall won’t help, because judges are erasing the recognition of the border altogether.
Because illegals are now considered a special protected class, courts are violating settled law by granting them citizen constitutional rights and even super-rights that citizens don’t have. Here’s the latest example.
Just days after the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s motion to overturn Judge Tigar’s unprecedented injunction on our border admission policies, the lawless circuit ruled that a statute prosecuting anyone who knowingly “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States,” is unconstitutional because it “criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected expression.”
This ruling violates our long-standing laws of criminalizing such behavior and opens the door for lawyers and agitation groups to continue thumbing their noses at our most foundational sovereignty laws.
Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, a naturalized immigrant from the Philippines, operated a boutique immigration consulting business in San Jose with several other branches across the country to help illegal aliens obtain visas in the U.S. She was convicted in 2013 in the Northern District of California of two felony counts of violating immigration law in addition to two non-immigration counts of mail fraud for knowingly advising her illegal immigrant clients to take advantage of worker programs for which they weren’t eligible. In 2015, she was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
The 1952 INA (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)) calls for felony prosecution for anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” At the trial, the Department of Justice under Obama presented significant evidence from five separate cases where Sineneng-Smith knowingly worked with unscrupulous employers to try to get work visas for those who overstayed their tourist visas and were living here illegally. Not only did she subvert our sovereignty by encouraging illegals to remain here illegally, she defrauded the illegal immigrants themselves by taking thousands of dollars to give them the impression she was working on obtaining their visas and even green cards. She then engaged in mail fraud to send them letters hoodwinking them into thinking they had earned legal status to remain here and were on a path to a green card. District Judge Ronald Whyte ultimately upheld the charges in two cases, a decision that was reversed yesterday in the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Wallace Tashima, writing for the panel of three Democrat-appointed judges at the Ninth Circuit, ruled that this entire statute is unconstitutional because it would criminalize “pure advocacy on a hotly debated issue in our society.”
This is utterly scandalous, because the law clearly refers to engaging in subversive and fraudulent activities to encourage or enable actual individual aliens to remain in the country, not mere political advocacy for liberal immigration policies in the abstract. It’s like saying that someone who hates high taxes and advocates against them is the same as a person who charges money to assist tax cheats and give them the impression that their activity is legal.
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, told me that this ruling is “absurd” because “the key issue is not her speech, but the fact that she did it for financial gain, and this is spelled out in the statute.”
“This woman’s main business was assisting and covering for an illegal activity that is harmful to our society and harms Americans and legal immigrants,” wrote Vaughan in an email. “She was basically a white-collar alien smuggler, helping illegal aliens launder their immigration status through fraud. How can this be above the law?”
Judges can’t veto laws; they can merely grant or deny relief to individual plaintiffs. Even if the judge were correct that this law, in general, could possibly rope in mere advocacy and speech for criminal prosecution, that concern doesn’t apply to this case. Judges rule on cases, not on laws. To believe otherwise is to concoct an entirely new level of judicial veto that our Founders explicitly rejected. This is the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.
This is also part of a growing trend of judges tossing out not only long-standing immigration enforcement policies, but even long-standing immigration statutes for the first time in our history. This law had been on the books in some form since 1891. Section 3 of the 1891 Immigration Act made it a felony to “assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien by promise of employment” through advertisements. Any alien who came in due to such advertisements was deemed inadmissible, and that law was designed to prevent people from encouraging them.
Disturbingly, modern judges have no concept of the power of the federal government to protect our sovereignty. The courts would never interfere with federal law if lawyers set up businesses to actively thwart our tax or health care laws, but illegal immigration has become a civil rights issue in their minds, thereby allowing them to create new First Amendment rights to break the laws. As Vaughan observed, despite the clear distinction in this case between speech and criminal activity, “to the Ninth Circuit, apparently all that matters is that illegal aliens were involved, so the criminal behavior must be excused and the law Congress wrote must be nullified.”
It also demonstrates that the legal profession is engaging in civil disobedience against our sovereignty. Last week, another New York federal judge declared sanctuary policies in seven states because, evidently, there’s now a constitutional right for states to obtain federal law enforcement grants even when they subvert federal law enforcement. Using absurd pretense of state powers, Judge Edgardo Ramos declared section 1373 of the INA, which requires local law enforcement to cooperate with immigration enforcement, unconstitutional and applied his ruling in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia, He ruled this from Newton, Massachusetts.
Not all judges disguise their agenda in the written fog of legalese, either. ICE is looking into an allegation that a state judge allowed a criminal alien to slip out the back of her courthouse to evade apprehension.
What do we do with a court system that no longer respects the most basic maxims of international law governing sovereign nation-states or our own history and traditions? Well, RINO Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker has shown us the way. He has defied multiple orders from state judges to restore the legitimate gun rights of citizens. Shouldn’t we be at least as aggressive when we have the law and the Constitution on our side in the face of judges concocting new rights for illegal aliens?
Caravan supporters disgrace legal immigrants and endanger fellow citizens
So much has changed from a cultural standpoint over the past decade, but nothing so unfortunate as the attempted legitimacy of lawlessness that pervades our current American landscape.
It seems like only yesterday when encouraging a foreign invasion on our southern border was considered a radical and dangerous sentiment. Now, it’s practically the spoken word throughout the mainstream media, Democrat political offices and Hollywood social media accounts.
Of course, we now live in a country where the American flag is considered a “hate symbol” on certain college campuses, so I suppose nothing should shock us anymore.
Had former presidential hopeful Barack Obama campaigned on the idea of opening our southern border to anyone who wished to cross it, without any verification whatsoever of who they are, what crimes they’ve committed or what provable and legitimate claim to asylum they may have, he would’ve been finished.
Nowadays, an open border is essentially the Democrat party slogan. What happened?
What happened was something that all Americans should take notice of—incremental destruction.
Here’s a presidential quote about the continued caravan invasion facing our nation: “Those who enter the country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
Sounds like the typical response from our current Commander-in-Chief, right?
Actually, that quote was from a different man, a then-Senator of Illinois by the name of Barack Obama.
Obama was cunning enough to know that the American people would no more accept open borders with Mexico than they would open doors with their neighborhood, and so an incremental change was necessary.
Incremental or not, fast-forward a decade, and opinions like those expressed explicitly by Obama would be enough to get you banned from social media and called a Nazi by the mainstream press.
Disingenuous or not, former Senator Obama’s words were spot on.
There’s nothing racist about locking your doors at night; millions of Americans of every race, gender, religion do it every night.
In fact, it is those who are supporting this attempted invasion who are disgracing legal immigrants such as myself, who had to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve citizenship legally.
Tens of thousands of dollars were invested after years of penny pinching, and countless hours were spent studying American civics and history. Lawyers, paperwork, medical testing—it’s all part of the well-worth-it process of coming to America the legal and legitimate way.
Those who took the time to follow the rule of law and went to these extraordinary lengths, making tremendous personal and financial sacrifices, are watching this caravan invasion on television and those who support it with resentment and betrayal.
After thousands of caravan members stormed the border at the San Ysidro Land Port of Entry, border patrol agents were forced to respond with nonlethal tear gas, after having lethal objects thrown at them by the invaders.
Rather than express support and gratitude for those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect this nation, Democrat officials chose a different route—one that would have been political suicide a decade ago.
Rep. Eric Swalwell showed off his fantastically asinine understanding of national security and, well, many things when he declared on Twitter: “Tear gas is a form of chemical weapon and I’m interested in learning more about whether any treaties were violated.”
Swalwell later added that the new Democratic Congress would seek to disarm border patrol of any weapons they might use to defend themselves before deleting the tweet and rightfully crawling back into a hole of embarrassment.
Barbara Lee saw Swalwell’s radical claims and said, “I’ll raise you.” “The tear-gassing of women and children at the border is an atrocity,” she said. “It’s a violation of human rights. And it is a grotesque betrayal of our founding promise, as a nation built by immigrants. I’ve called for @UN inspectors on the border, and I reiterate that call today.”
Miss Lee seems to think that the United Nations should be allowed to tell our border patrol agents how to defend their lives and do their jobs.
I’ll also add that as a mother, any woman who would use her child as a shield, knowingly endangering their lives, is not someone who deserves to call themselves an American.
By the way, we are not a nation built by immigrants, we are a nation founded by settlers and built by citizens. Immigrants become citizens, and then add to the fabric of the American ideal.
Immigrants who make this country better do so assimilating to America—not the other way around—as well as by following the law, not breaking it.
The left has always downplayed any such thing as "anchor babies" and derided the term as "offensive."
But how else to explain the Honduran caravan migrant who managed to slip into the U.S. on Nov. 26 illegally and, surprise, surprise, gave birth to a new baby just a few days later? That's the story from Fox News:
SAN DIEGO – A Honduran woman affiliated with a caravan of Central American migrants has given birth on U.S. soil shortly after entering the country illegally.
Customs and Border Protection said Wednesday that agents arrested the woman Nov. 26 after she entered the country illegally near Imperial Beach, California, across the border from Tijuana, Mexico.
The woman was eight months pregnant and was taken to a hospital after complaining of abdominal pain. She and her family were released from custody on Sunday, pending the outcomes of their immigration cases.
Catch and release. Entrance ahead of all the other migrants waiting in line. No waiting in Mexico. No fees for applying for asylum. No penalty for entering the U.S. illegally. Is that a good deal or what? No wonder she made sure she slipped in, ahead of all the other migrants, getting into the U.S. under the wire. She had a deadline, she knew she had a deadline, and she made it.
And with the new baby, the good stuff for her has barely started.
With no education, no mastery of the English language, no salable skills, low literacy, and no father in the picture mentioned (maybe there is, but I doubt it, given the cultural values of the Honduran lower middle classes), she has no practical means of succeeding in America. Yet with that baby in tow, she's hit the jackpot. And she's done so without putting so much as a penny into U.S. coffers via taxes. Nor does she ever need to. Uncle Sam's banquet is spread.
Illegal aliens already get more than a thousand dollars more in benefits than legal Americans for starters. If she's coming in as an asylee applicant, she gets far more than just that. If she's merely a garden-variety illegal, she still gets the jackpot. The baby ensures that she will get a $94,000 lifetime welfare benefit package through her U.S.-born child no matter how frivolous her asylum claim may be, accepted or not. She gets cash and food benefits for the child, free housing, free medical care, and pretty much anything else she needs for free. Coming here illegally is a great deal for those in the market for welfare. And non-citizens, as recent reports have shown, are prodigiousconsumers of welfare.
The Trump administration has asked the Homeland Security Department to prepare measures to keep her, as a public charge, from accessing permanent residency rights, which is a reasonable stopgap measure, given the incentives to immigrate illegally. What it can also do is reinforce the border so that such crossings do not happen, something the president said would be done – and which never happened.
But what's really needed is for Congress to enact legislation to end birthright citizenship, to put a stop to this kind of system-gaming from people who have little to contribute here and who are trampling on both the taxpayers and the immigrants waiting to get in. Anchor babies are real, and this first one from the caravan isn't about coming to America out of love for the country. It's about gaming the system to harvest the free stuff.
Karen Camper voted first African-American leader in Tennessee House of Representatives
Tennessee House Democrats have selected leadership for the upcoming legislative session, choosing Rep. Karen Camper in a historic election for House minority leader.
Camper, D-Memphis, becomes the first African-American to serve as Democratic Party leader in the House. She replaces House Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh, D-Ripley, who did not seek re-election to his West Tennessee seat.
Fitzhugh ran unsuccessfully in this year's Democratic gubernatorial primary after serving more than two decades in the Tennessee General Assembly.
"I am honored by the faith the Caucus has shown in me and I pledge to bring the type of aggressive leadership needed to advance legislation that promotes the Democratic agenda," Camper said in a statement.
She highlighted "quality health care and economic opportunities for all Tennesseans" as legislative priorities.
Camper, a retired U.S. Army chief warrant officer, was first elected to the legislature in 2008.
The House Democratic Caucus voted on its new leadership in a meeting Sunday, days after House Republicans on Tuesday nominated Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, to become the next Speaker of the House.
A release from the five-member Senate Democratic Caucus:
NASHVILLE – State Sens. Jeff Yarbro and Raumesh Akbari were elected to head the Senate Democratic Caucus in leadership elections Tuesday.
“This caucus will fight for every Tennessean to have a shot, a shot at a good education and a good job, not one where you just make a living, but can build a life,” Sen. Yarbro said.” Our caucus will bring new energy, new ideas, and be united to meet the challenges of the coming session.”
Sen. Yarbro of Nashville will serve as Senate Minority Leader, and Sen. Akbari of Memphis will serve as Democratic Chairman for the caucus.
“Democrats are picking up momentum around the state, and I am honored to serve in this role with such a phenomenal group of Senators,” Sen. Akbari said. “The energy is undeniable, and I know we can kick it up a notch for 2020.”
Both elections were unanimous. In addition, Sen. Brenda Gilmore was elected Democratic Floor Leader; Sen. Sara Kyle was elected Caucus Vice-Chair; and Sen. Katrina Robinson was elected Democratic Whip.
Glen Casada Wins House Republican Nomination For Speaker
NASHVILLE, Tennessee – Widely seen as the favored candidate, State Representative Glen Casada easily won the three-way race for Speaker-Elect with 43 of 73 votes, setting the tone for the other mainly predictable 11 elections held during the House Republican Caucus meeting held Tuesday.
As current Republican Caucus Chairman, Representative Ryan Williams (Cookeville) opened the meeting and reviewed some ground rules. Williams said that, per the Bylaws of the House Republican Caucus, an independent accounting firm would count the ballots and declare the winner of each race. The successful candidate would need a total of 37 votes, even if a member chose not to vote.
Although it did not happen, there was a provision in the event that no candidate received 37 votes in the first round, whereby the person with the lowest number of votes would be eliminated, and additional votes taken until a candidate reached 37 votes. The votes for each position would not be cast until the results of the previous election were declared.
Williams announced that the ballots and tally sheets would be preserved and available for review in the office of the new duly-elected Caucus Chair. Representative Dan Howell (Georgetown) made a motion, which was seconded by Representative Timothy Hill (Blountville) that in the interest of transparency, the vote and tally be made public.
Caucus members voted by a show of hands, and Williams declared that the motion passed with “well over half” voting in favor of making the votes and tally public.
In accordance with the Bylaws, the Speaker’s race was held first. Because current Caucus Chair Ryan Williams was a candidate for Majority Leader, the Speaker-Elect would preside over the meeting until a new Caucus Chair was elected.
Although names were drawn in order to determine who would speak first in a multi-candidate race, ironically, Williams said, the three candidates for Speaker were drawn in alphabetical order with Glen Casada (Franklin) going first, followed by David Hawk (Greeneville) and Curtis Johnson (Clarksville).
Ocasio-Cortez Sees Global Warming as Way to Push Social and Racial Agenda
by Michael Bastasch
Democratic Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said the “Green New Deal” plan she supports would be used to achieve liberal “economic, social and racial justice” goals along with fighting global warming.
“We can use the transition to 100 percent energy as the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America,” Ocasio-Cortez said at a Tuesday panel discussion alongside Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and environmental activist Bill McKibben.
The soon-to-be New York representative has spent her time in Washington, D.C. promoting a “Green New Deal” to transition the U.S. to 100 percent green energy. Ocasio-Cortez even joined protesters occupying House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office in support of the plan.
While light on details, proponents said the “Green New Deal” could create millions of jobs in renewable energy and address many “social justice” issues typically on Democrats’ radar.
“This is going to be the Great Society, the moonshot, the civil rights movement of our generation,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “This is the mechanism through which we can really deliver justice to communities that have been underserved. The water in Flint is still dirty.”
“We have injustices in this country. Those injustices are concentrated in frontline communities and indigenous, black and brown communities,” she said. “They’re the ones that experience the greatest depths of this injustice.”
What’s unclear is if the “Green New Deal” can move beyond the far-left of the Democratic Party and into the mainstream. Several top House Democrats already rejected a key part of the plan — creating a special House committee to draft climate legislation.
Democratic New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, who is set to chair the Committee on Energy and Commerce next year, plans on holding hearings on global warming after taking the gavel. Pallone doesn’t support creating a special climate committee.
“We want to move very aggressively, we’ve got people in charge of these committees who are very progressive, and I just don’t see the need for the select committee,” Pallone told reporters in November.
“In part, I think it may actually delay what the progressives are trying to achieve,” Pallone said.
Bernie Sanders – Climate Hawk Spends Nearly $300K on Private Jet Travel in Month
by Peter Hasson
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s re-election campaign spent just under $300,000 on private jet use in October, Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show.
The Sanders campaign, which is funded primarily by small-dollar donors, paid Apollo Jets $297,685.50 on Oct. 10, FEC records reveal. The payment was marked for “transportation.”
“This expense was for transportation for the senator’s 9-day, 9-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day,” campaign spokeswoman Arianna Jones told local website VtDigger.com, which first reported on the jet expenses.
“This cost covered the entirety of the tour from Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, California, and back to Vermont,” Jones said.
Sanders’s private jet use comes despite the senator’s hard-line stance on climate change, which he has consistently called “the single greatest threat facing our planet.”
“The campaign purchased carbon offsets from Native Energy to support renewable energy projects and invest in carbon reduction projects to balance out the emissions produced on the trip,” Jones told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Carbon offsets in theory allow polluters to cancel out their emissions by funding projects aimed at reducing emissions.
The same day his campaign cut a check to the private jet company, Sanders called climate change a “planetary crisis.”
“Climate change is a planetary crisis. Our task is clear. We must take on the fossil fuel industry that’s largely responsible for global emissions and accelerate our transition toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources,” Sanders wrote in an Oct. 10 tweet.