Monday, July 24, 2017


by -
How's your immigration problem coming along?

New figured released on Friday by the Whitehouse show 30,000 criminal immigrants arrested by ICE officials under the Trump administration in just the past 5 months. Nearly 90 percent of these detainees have held prior convictions for crimes as wide ranging as domestic violence, sexual assault, murder and arson. These really are some bad hombres.

President Trump promised to make illegal immigration a priority in many of his campaign speeches before taking office, and the evidence so far is bearing out his words. With Executive Orders in place, Trump is cutting through slow moving congressional bureaucracy to give our law enforcement officials the remit they need to clean up our cities.

With existing illegal immigrants already being indentified and detained. New aliens looking to cross the border are also finding their efforts curtailed, recent reports show a 60 percent fall in those caught along the South West of the border compared to the same period last year. It seems that stricter laws are causing some welcome second thoughts for those looking to take advantage of this country’s prior magnanimity.

With issues south of the border being handled, what about refugees and economic migrants flying in from foreign shores? With Trump’s travel ban finally being pushed through by the Supreme Court, we seem to be well on our way to freeing ourselves from the refugee crisis threatening to sink Europe.

But interestingly, countries that were previously hostile to taking back their immigrants are now starting to change their tune as well. With arrests for illegal immigrants and visa law violators increasing, countries such as China, Pakistan, Brazil, Egypt, Ghana and Nigeria are starting to realize that we will not foot the bill for their rightful citizens.

Trump understands what previous administrations didn’t, that few countries when faced with the choice are willing to give up foreign aid to reinforce their hard-line stance.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media is finding it increasingly difficult to argue with popular opinion, the national consensus is with the Trump administration on immigration – 60 percent of Americans, including 41 percent of Democrats agree with the travel ban as it stands.

The biggest item still left unfulfilled on Trump’s agenda is the wall. Earlier this year an open call was put to the construction firms and architects to find a workable way of building this massive structure, with most estimates putting the cost at around 21.6 billion dollars. While suggestions so far have ranged from inventive to far-fetched, what hasn’t changed is the administration’s commitment to seeing the idea come to fruition.

Sitting right next to his Mexican counterpart at the G20 meeting in Hamburg, Trump reiterated his firm stance by stating that he will “absolutely” see Mexico pay for the wall’s construction. Administration officials have suggested that “enormous progress” is being made in regards to illegal immigration, and discussions regarding the Wall may well be tied closely linked to NAFTA renegotiations set to take place.

With forward momentum on immigration seemingly unstoppable and with public opinion turning sharply against them is it time for the Democratic Party to start changing too? How long can you afford to be the party advocating open borders, when wave after wave of terrorist attack wreaks havoc across Europe?

It seems the message still hasn’t sunk in though; a recent House vote on Kate’s Law which increases penalties on deported illegals re-entering the United States only received a positive response from 24 Democrats.

The question to be asked here is: why do liberals not respect the legal process already in place for immigration to this country? If a foreign citizen cannot enter this nation under truthful and honest means, then how can we expect them to become contributing members of the society? For all their Globalist rhetoric, the left must understand that the laws apply to everyone no matter what creed, color or religion they follow.


by -
gun shows

According to recent reports along the U.S. border with Mexico, the number of illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States is again spiking, and could rival the wave of illegal crossings in 2014. Facing this problem, one would hope that a priority for federal immigration officials would be to focus on employing new technologies to improve chances for catching criminals who have thus come into our country. Federal immigration officials, however, appear more interested in using new-fangled technology to intimidate and harass American citizens who decide simply to drop by lawful gun shows.

As discovered in an analysis of government emails by the Wall Street Journal, a joint program between local law enforcement and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials has been using license plate-reading technology to track gun show attendees. According to the Journal, the program dates back to 2010, and likely spread far beyond the original target area of southern California. It is possible that if you have attended a gun show in any state in the last the half-decade, your personal information is now stored in a government database.

To make matters worse, ICE apparently has no explicit policy in place limiting the use of license plate readers, or how information gathered thus far is shared with other agencies, or how it is stored and for how long. As we’ve seen previously in states like Maryland, which allegedly used concealed carry permit data shared with them through the shady and unaccountable network of intelligence “Fusion Centers,” it is conceivable that personal information collected from gun shows can be, and likely will be, used to target innocent Americans now and in the future. After all, a person would not even have to purchase a firearm at one of these gun shows to end up in a law enforcement database.

Such schemes attempting to link gun ownership to border crime is all too familiar for an Administration responsible for the “gun-walking” debacle known as “Fast and Furious.” But this latest revelation is a frightening reminder of just how far the Obama Administration is willing to go to chill law-abiding citizens’ exercise of their Second Amendment-guaranteed rights.

President Bill Clinton’s support for gun control measures was well-known. And, during the first two years of his Administration, when the Congress remained under firm Democratic Party control, Clinton pressed his anti-Second Amendment agenda through legislative measures; resulting in the so-called “Brady Bill” which he signed into law in 1993, and the “Assault Weapons Ban” the following year.

Barack Obama, however, not having a compliant Congress to work with (other than during his first two years, from 2009 to 2010), clearly prefers sneakier ways to move his anti-gun agenda forward. Thus, the use of federal regulatory agencies with no clear or even lawful jurisdiction over firearms, to limit the Second Amendment. Abusing the regulatory powers of the FDIC to pressure banks into severing ties with companies that engage in lawful firearms transactions in “Operation Choke Point,” is but the most outrageous example of this approach; there are numerous others, ranging from those involving the departments of State, Health and Human Services, or the Centers for Disease Control.

The recently revealed license plate-reading scheme, however, is a particularly nefarious tactic by the Obama Administration, insofar as it indiscriminately ensnares anyone who attends a gun show for any reason. All such persons become suspects in the eyes of law enforcement officials; including people who might merely be shopping for knives, or who had dropped by to view or participate in non-gun related exhibits popular at such shows.

This program illustrates the fundamental problem with dragnets such as these employed by ICE: potential “guilt” is determined not by any evidence of criminal forethought or activity, but by algorithms and connecting dots that fit the government’s perception of “suspicious activity”; even if such activity is completely legal and constitutional. For example, it is not far-fetched to envision that a person tracked at a gun show, and then tracked again at a school, could suddenly find himself surrounded by SWAT teams ready to shoot what the government’s computer program concludes is a possible killer, but is in reality nothing more sinister than a father picking up a child at school after dropping by a lawful gun show.

The government may see its gun show surveillance program as a clever way to catch gun “runners,” but it is simply another way to chill our Second Amendment rights.

by -
sanctuary cities

The Obama administration rewards sanctuary states, counties and cities that shield violent illegal immigrants from deportation with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants and one of the biggest recipients recently made headlines for protecting a serial criminal who murdered a young woman. The money flows through the Department of Justice (DOJ), the agency responsible for enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States. The DOJ is also charged with providing federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, according to its mission statement, and seeking just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior.

Apparently this doesn’t apply to local governments that support the president’s broad open borders policies, even when they violate federal law. The DOJ doled out $342,168,401 to 10 sanctuary states and cities that proudly reject federal claims for criminal illegal aliens earmarked for removal, according to the agency’s independent watchdog. Among them is Connecticut, a trailblazer in the sanctuary movement that received more than $69 million in grants from the DOJ. Connecticut has long protected illegal immigrants with sanctuary policies and even offers them special drivers’ licenses, known as Drive Only. The state also gives illegal aliens discounted tuition at public colleges and universities and authorities work hard to restrict the feds from deporting illegal immigrants. Last year an illegal immigrant who had spent 17 years in prison for attempted murder stabbed a 25-year-old woman to death in Norwich, a city of about 40,000 residents. The murderer had been earmarked for deportation at least three times.

California, also a renowned sanctuary state that offers illegal immigrants a number of taxpayer-funded perks, topped the list with $132,409,635 in DOJ grants. Judicial Watch has investigated the state’s illegal sanctuary policies for years and back in 2008 launched a California public records request with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to obtain the arrest and booking information on Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien from El Salvador who murdered three innocent American citizens. Ramos was a member of a renowned violent street gang and had been convicted of two felonies as a juvenile (a gang-related assault on a bus passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman) yet he was allowed to remain in the country. Last year Judicial Watch obtained records showing that violent crime—including murder and rape—in the Bay area has skyrocketed since the San Francisco Sheriff and City Council expanded illegal alien sanctuary policies in 2013.

Under the ordinance San Francisco law enforcement agencies are required to ignore most U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers. Judicial Watch is also investigating whether the city violated the law again with its sanctuary policy that led to the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant deported five times who gunned down Kate Steinle at one of the most popular tourist spots in San Francisco.

Two cities—New York and Chicago—got $60,091,942 and $28,523,222 respectively from the DOJ and Philadelphia followed with $16,505,312. South Florida’s Miami-Dade County received $10,778,815, Milwaukee, Wisconsin got $7,539,572, Cook County, Illinois $6,018,544, Clark County, Nevada $6,257,9851 and Orleans Parish, Louisiana $4,737,964. In some cases elected officials in these municipalities brag about defying federal immigration laws. One, the mayor of Chicago, is mentioned in the DOJ Inspector General report for publicly stating: “We are not going to turn people over to ICE, and we are not going to check their immigration status.” The city also prohibits employees from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, the report says.

Other recipients of our taxpayer dollars do the same with no consequences. The Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office has an “ICE Procedures” policy that states the agency shall not initiate any immigration status investigation into individuals in their custody or provide the feds with information on an inmate’s release date or address.

Philadelphia’s mayor issued an executive order stating that the pending release of the subject of an ICE immigration detainer shall not be provided to the agency unless the person has been convicted of a felony and New York enacted a law years ago restricting jail personnel from communicating with ICE regarding an inmate’s release date, incarceration status or court dates. The law resulted in ICE closing its office on Riker’s Island and ceasing operations on any other NYC Department of Corrections property, the report reveals. It’s beyond comprehension that these law-breaking local governments are being rewarded with federal funds distributed by the agency responsible for enforcing the law.

by -

Only 1 in 500 people detained in illegal immigrant holding facilities is transgender–but that hasn’t stopped the Obama Administration from rolling out sweeping new perks.

Now, agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement will let the illegal immigrants they detain–some of them dangerous criminals–live with whomever they choose. Based on their self-proclaimed “gender identity.”

This represents a huge new victory for gay, lesbian, and transgender activists–who have long-wanted to see the United States Government stop sending transgendered immigrants to jails based on the sex they were born with.

“We believe this guidance is the most comprehensive for transgender individuals in any custodial entity,” said deputy assistant director for ICE’s custody programs, Andrew Lorenzen-Strait, in an interview.

According to that same interview, Lorenzen-Strait apparently said that the only way to tell which gender the detainee “identified” with would be to “respectfully ask” them–so, basically, whatever gender a captured illegal immigrant says they want to live with, they’ll be allowed to. No questions asked.

The ICE handbook for dealing with possibly-transgender inmates provides a script on which questions to ask illegal who “appear to indicate a gender different from the sex listed on the detainee’s identity documentation.” But there’s no word on exactly how it’ll be determined who is actually transgender–and who is faking it.

Many of the transgendered illegal immigrants are seeking asylum in the United States not because of economic reasons, but because of discrimination they’ve faced in their home countries. Regardless of prevailing public opinion, life for a transgendered person is far better in the United States than it is in many Latin American countries, where many illegal immigrants come from.

But, because some of these immigrants are put in jails with people who were born the same sex as they were, there’s an increased possibility for sexual assault–especially because some of the transgender women in the men’s prison look quite a bit more like women than male prisoners are used to seeing.

In fact, more than 1 in 5 sexual abuse and assault cases reported to ICE as taking part in their detainment centers came with transgender victims. In one especially disgusting case, a male prison guard forced a transgender inmate to show her breasts, while he “inappropriately touched himself.”

The Obama White House–which has been increasingly willing to flaunt their support for sexual and transgender minorities in recent weeks–feels this stance will help to protect illegal immigrants from sexual abuse. But the larger repercussions–of having male inmates simply “being asked” which gender they identify with, in terms of prison placement–have yet to be determined.

by -

Federal immigration officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) report that the number of criminal aliens released on to the streets of America so far because of overcrowding and President Barack Obama’s Executive Amnesty order has reached nearly 170,000 through the end of January.

This according to testimony delivered by ICE Director Sarah Saldana during a hearing on ICE’s performance and procedures for removing criminal aliens currently living in the United States before Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Chairman Chaffetz thought the statistic so important that he pointedly read the number aloud before a packed hearing. According to Brittany Hughes reporting for CNS News, Chaffetz said:

“…there are 167,527 non-detained, final-order convicted criminals on the loose in the United States”…

”These are people that are here illegally, get caught, convicted, and you release back out into the public.” Chaffetz added that some of the crimes committed by those who have been released include homicide, sex crimes, child pornography, drunk driving, robbery and kidnapping.

According to CNSNews, the federal government released 36,007 criminal aliens from the ICE custody in 2013, including those convicted of sex crimes, homicide, drunk driving, kidnapping and robbery and another 30,000 in 2014.

Of these, approximately 1,000 went on to commit new crimes ranging from assault with a deadly weapon and lewd acts with a child to aggravated assault, robbery, and hit-and-run.

Saldana said the release of criminal aliens back into the community were conducted pursuant to ICE’s “discretionary control” authority. In a direct exchange between Chairman Chaffetz and Saldana, Chaffetz began with this question:

“Madam Director, if you’re a criminal, will you be deported?”

“Those are the people we’re looking for, yes” Saldana answered.

“But they’ve been in your detention. They’ve been detained. I mean they were convicted. They were…were they deported?” Chaffetz continued.

“They were in the process of being deported,”…“Everyone in our detention facilities is in the process of being deported…” responded Saldana.

“Well that’s not true. I mean, you regularly release them back out into the public before they get deported, correct?” Chaffetz asked.

Of the roughly 36,000 criminal aliens released by ICE in 2013, about 22,000 were released under ICE’s “discretionary control,” she estimated.

“So you don’t automatically deport them, then?” Chaffetz asked.

“Automatically, sir? No (but) the law gives us that discretion.”

“And so when we say, if you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported, that’s not necessarily true,” Chaffetz said.

“It is true, sir. It’s in–”

Interrupting, Chaffetz asked “After they get released back into the public for untold number of times?”

“It does happen. It does happen, yes, and that’s exactly what we’re here to do,” Saldana confessed.

“What does happen? That they get released?” Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” Saldana said, “Even criminals that are released. “Those people were released under the laws of the United States,” Saldana added, explaining that according to “due process,” it can easily take “months and even years to deport folks.”

This dry explanation of the content and implementation of ICE policy by Saldana did not include any mention of the effect that recidivist criminal aliens have on American victims of their crimes.

by -

During a town hall even hosted by the MSNBC cable network, President Barack Obama pointedly warned U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to implement his illegal executive amnesty order or else.

The president’s warning came in response to concerns expressed by some in attendance that the Administration might resume the deportation of illegal immigrants following an injunction signed by Federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen to enjoin Obama from suspending the deportation of more than 5.5 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

Talking about the legal battle underway to stop Executive Amnesty in the courts, Obama said:

“Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be. . .”

“If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”

Earlier in the week, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) echoed the president’s warning with this prediction. The federal judge’s injunction against (the president’s) temporary amnesty program would activate an unprecedented “militancy” in the immigrant community that will drive them to the polls against Republicans. Left out of Gutierrez’s warning is the issue of illegal immigrant voting at the center of his argument.

Gutierrez continued by saying that pro-amnesty advocates would not be “deterred” by Judge Hanen’s injunction telling MSNBC’s Jose Diaz Balart that the:

“(M)ilitancy that will be activated throughout the immigrant community in terms of voter registration, voter participation and voter anger at the Republican Party… I think you are going to see it in an unprecedented manner.”

“You may think you won today, but your victory is going to be short-lived, and November 2016 is coming right around the corner–and this will come back to haunt you,”

Gutierrez also directed his wrath against Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) who is leading the fight against Obama’s Executive Amnesty. Gov. Greg Abbott told CBS’s “Face the Nation” with Bob Schieffer that:

“Already this calendar year, since January 1, we have had more than 20,000 people come across the border, apprehended, unauthorized. And so we have an ongoing problem on the border that Congress must step up and solve.”

In a separate report published in Breitbart News at the time the federal court injunction against the implementation of Obama’s Executive Amnesty was signed, then Attorney General Abbott said:

“President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat, and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks. . .”

“We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the President’s attempt to by-pass the will of the American people was successfully checked today. The District Court’s ruling is very clear — it prevents the President from implementing the policies in ‘any and all aspects.’ “

In a rebuttal published in The Weekly Standard, President Obama explained his threat to act against ICE officers who failed to follow his executive action with this military analogy. . .

“In the U.S. military, when you get an order, you’re expected to follow it. It doesn’t mean that everybody follows the order. If they don’t, they’ve got a problem. And the same is going to be true with respect to the policies that we’re putting forward”.

President Obama is only half-right. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Section 16c(1)(c) states:

“A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”

In his injunction against the enforcement of Obama’s Executive Amnesty order, Judge Hanen affirms exactly that.


Environmental Disaster

The feds believe that spending $200,000 on a video game that focuses on the importance of clean water can be a total game changer...