FLASHBACK: Vile names Democrats called the Tea Party (P.S. MS-13 ARE ‘Animals’)

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

MS-13 gang members accused of killing man, burning car with his body in trunk at Va. park

“At least 10 members of the gang lured the victim into a park in Wheaton, Maryland, communicated with one another over walkie-talkies as he arrived, and then allegedly stabbed him more than 100 times, decapitated him and then cut out his heart…” IBT, MS-13 Gang Member Charged With Stabbing, Decapitation, Ripping Out Heart Of Victim, November 22, 2017

“The men reportedly took turns whacking the 15-year-old girl’s flailing body — 28 swings in total. Her injuries included an ‘indented’ buttocks, discolored arms and legs, and visible bleeding from the neck down.” Local D.C. ABC Affiliate, “Police: MS-13 men beat sex-trafficked girl with bat 28 times, ‘indented’ part of her body,” February 16 2018

“Santos Arquimidis Sorto Amaya was just leaving his home to go to work when four MS-13 members abducted him, shot him and then put his body in his own car and set it on fire at Veterans Park, police said.” Local D.C. News, “MS-13 gang abduction, killing in Woodbridge was completely random, police say,” May 10 2018

“In what Grant County detectives call one of the most savage murders they’ve ever investigated, 31-year old Jill Sundberg was shot multiple times; her body was dumped near the Old Vantage Highway. Detectives found a note, stuck in Sundberg’s back with a knife…” Local Idaho News, “Note found stuck in body of murder victim revealed,” March 7, 2017 “

Those who condemn President Trump for referring to MS-13 gang members as “animals,” repeatedly referred to law-abiding American citizens in the most heinous of ways while Barack Obama was president.

Here is a transcript of the President’s remarks.

Watch them in context:

In 2011, then-Vice President Joe Biden denied referring to the Tea Party as “terrorists.” Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison even took to Twitter to defend his honor:

But a mere two years later, Biden was referring openly to the Tea Party as “extremists” and Keith Ellison was sharing an article on Twitter where Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to the Tea Party as “anarchists.”

The same Keith Ellison expressed outrage over President Trump referring to MS-13 gang members as “animals.”

Rep. Adam Schiff blasted President Trump for referring to MS13 members as “animals.” He said in part, “These degrading words are also how despots around the world dehumanize those they persecute. ” In 2011, Rep. Adam Schiff referred to the Tea Party as “extremists.”

Elected democrats such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and even then-President Obama long with their allies such as former Vice President Al Gore, Jeremiah Wright, and Obama’s “spiritual advisor” Jim Wallis referred to the Tea Party as  radicalsanarchistsextremiststerroristsunbiblical, legislative arsonists, committing jihad, have bombs strapped to their chestscommitting extortiontaking hostages, want to “tear down the house our founders built,” want to “blow up the global economy,” are “holding a gun to the head of Americans,” and are a “2.0 upgrade of the lynch mobs.”

Obama referred to law-abiding citizens as “extremists,” while President Trump refers to murderous MS-13 gang members as “animals.”

President Trump is getting hammered for referring to MS-13 gang members as “animals.” Allow the author to do some name calling. Those who express faux outrage over President Trump’s comments are hypocrites.

Here are some stories about MS-13:

Are they animals?


From the APP Store, Notifica ICE Raids

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Ah yes, those pesky apps found on iTunes and Google Play, funded by George Soros. This app helps illegal immigrants avoid federal immigration authorities. The group behind this scheme is United We Dream and guess what? That organization receives taxpayer funding. Uh huh…

Notifica is a project of United We Dream

United We Dream is the largest immigrant youth-led network in the country. With over half a million members, we advocate for the justice and dignity for all immigrants. Notifica was made thanks to the knowledge of immigrant youth organizing, and a generous partnership with Huge and Matter Supply, full service design/digital agencies


Notifica, is a new app that will act as a panic button for undocumented immigrants who are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Wired reports.

To help immigrants who have been detained, the organization United We Dream, which is led by young immigrants, and digital agency Huge developed the Notifica app. When immigrants are detained by ICE their families and loved ones might not even know what happened, but Notifica aims to change that.

“You have the right to be prepared,” says the app’s site. “Be prepared with Notifica, an app that sends out secure messages to your support network when you need it most.”

How The Notifica App Works

With Notifica, users can select contacts they want to notify in case they are taken by ICE. The app allows users to set up a personalized notification to each recipient, for example, a message to your mom or sibling would be different than the one you send to your attorney. After you write the preloaded messages, others will not have access to them and will not be able to read them. There is also a pin that seals off the messages in case your device is lost or stolen.

If the user is taken by ICE, a single click will send all messages via text in less than two seconds. Huge has also launched a phone hotline for those who don’t have a phone in reach but may be able to make a call afterwards. More here.


A division of the Justice Department awarded at least $206,453 to the National Immigration Law Center, which advises illegal immigrants on their rights, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch.

The Office of Justice Programs awarded the grants between fiscal years 2008 and 2010, the records cited by the conservative government watchdog group show. That would overlap the administrations of both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

One of the projects of the National Immigration Law Center is United We Dream, which describes itself as a youth program for “undocumented” immigrants.

The Laredo Morning Times quoted Adrian Reyna, director of membership and technology strategies for United We Dream, as saying that “when something actually happens, most people don’t know what to do at that moment.”

The Texas newspaper also reported that United We Dream is working on a second version of Notifica that will include the ability to use more languages besides Spanish and English.

The second version, set to be released this summer, would include Vietnamese, Korean, and Chinese. The updated app also will be able to determine where an illegal immigrant is being detained, the newspaper reported.

United We Dream pushes to give legal status to so-called Dreamers, illegal immigrants brought to the United States when they were children. The organization, which has a hotline, advises illegal immigrants against cooperating with agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In a press release, the group says: “United We Dream calls on our communities to defend their rights, not open the door to ICE, and to report ICE activities to the United We Dream MigraWatch hotline.”

The April release adds: “United We Dream has also developed the mobile app, Notifica, which immediately alerts your loved ones and legal advocates to the user’s location in cases of detention. Text ‘Notifica’ to 877-877 for a link for download.”

The Soros-backed Open Societies Foundations don’t have a direct role in the app, but doesn’t find it objectionable, said Angela Kelley, the senior strategic adviser on immigration at the Open Society Foundations.


7 States Suing Over DACA, Know the Details

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

There are countless lawsuits already and here comes another. Several DACA cases have been ruled against by liberal judges. Now Texas has joined other states.

TX v USA Re DACA Complaint 050118 by Kaitlyn on Scribd

Perhaps those judges have not read all the real details of DACA.

DACA is a request for consideration, it is NOT an automatic approval and it is temporary. See the stipulations here.


You may request DACA if you:

  1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
  2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
  3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
  4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
  5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
  6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
  7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor,or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.


The Obama administration chose to deploy DACA by Executive Branch memorandum—despite the fact that Congress affirmatively rejected such a program in the normal legislative process on multiple occasions. The constitutionality of this action has been widely questioned since its inception.

DACA’s criteria were overly broad, and not intended to apply only to children. Under the categorical criteria established in the June 15, 2012 memorandum, individuals could apply for deferred action if they had come to the U.S. before their 16th birthday; were under age 31; had continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007; and were in school, graduated or had obtained a certificate of completion from high school, obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or were an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. Significantly, individuals were ineligible if they had been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor, but were considered eligible even if they had been convicted of up to two other misdemeanors.

The Attorney General sent a letter to the Department on September 4, 2017, articulating his legal determination that DACA “was effectuated by the previous administration through executive action, without proper statutory authority and with no established end-date, after Congress’ repeated rejection of proposed legislation that would have accomplished a similar result. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” The letter further stated that because DACA “has the same legal and constitutional defects that the courts recognized as to DAPA, it is likely that potentially imminent litigation would yield similar results with respect to DACA.”

Based on this analysis, the President was faced with a stark choice: do nothing and allow for the probability that the entire DACA program could be immediately enjoined by a court in a disruptive manner, or instead phase out the program in an orderly fashion. Today, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Duke issued a memorandum (1) rescinding the June 2012 memo that established DACA, and (2) setting forward a plan for phasing out DACA. The result of this phased approach is that the Department of Homeland Security will provide a limited window in which it will adjudicate certain requests for DACA and associated applications for Employment Authorization Documents meeting parameters specified below.

  • Please see the USCIS website for the latest information about DACA.


Take Honduras as an Example

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

The caravan, the caravan…

There is a crisis going on at the California border check point where an estimated 200 migrants are attempting to gain entry into the United States by using all tactics stressing our resources and laws.

(Note the sign provided by ANSWER Coalition)

So, the big question is if these people are desperate to leave their home countries out of fear, crime and corruption, then why have they not visited our embassies in their home countries? They just fled. People fleeing to the United States must and do travel through Mexico. So, where is the humanitarian policy of Mexico to accept these desperate people?

A large number of people attempting to enter the United States come from a handful of countries in Central America such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. So, let us examine Honduras as an example. for a summary of the crime and threat assessment in Honduras, go here.

In 2009, Obama cut $200 million in non-humanitarian aid to Honduras. The United States must address stabilizing these countries, rather than allowing their failures and exporting the problem(s) to the United States.


Honduras, one of Latin America’s poorest nations, strives to improve its economic and democratic development with U.S. assistance. The United States has historically been the largest bilateral donor to Honduras. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs target a variety of sectors including education, health, economic policy, microenterprise, environmental conservation, food security, municipal development, and justice sector reform. USAID has provided more than $3 billion in economic and social development assistance to the Honduran people since it began working in the country in 1961. Currently, programs focus on addressing the main push factors of migration by improving citizen security, reducing extreme poverty, and improving public administration through transparency and accountability reforms. To achieve these objectives, USAID’s efforts address citizen security through community-based crime prevention activities, with a focus on the highest crime neighborhoods and those youth who are most at-risk. Additionally, USAID strengthens local and national governance, as well as civil society monitoring and watchdog organizations; helps the poorest sectors of society increase food security and incomes; supports the sustainable management of natural resources; expands quality basic education and workplace and life-skills training; and improves the quality and participation of local citizens and civil society in decentralized basic services.

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce will be dedicating $1.5 million for a customs and border management program focused on improving trade into Honduras and others parts of Central America. The U.S. Department of Agriculture provided $47 million in 2015-2016 for its two programs that deliver school meals to 53,000 students and increase agricultural productivity and trade.

The United States Armed Forces maintain a small presence at a Honduran military base. U.S. forces conduct and provide logistical support for a variety of bilateral and multilateral exercises–medical, engineering, counternarcotics, and disaster relief–for the benefit of the Honduran people and their Central American neighbors. Through the Central America Regional Security Initiative, the United States supports the Government of Honduras by assisting law enforcement entities in disrupting criminal networks; building investigative, prosecutorial, and judicial capacity; and implementing violence prevention programs for vulnerable communities.

In June 2005, Honduras became the first country in the hemisphere to sign a Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact with the U.S. Government. Under the Compact, the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation invested $205 million over 5 years to help Honduras improve its road infrastructure, diversify its agriculture, and transport its products to market. In 2013, Honduras received a $15.6 million MCC Threshold Agreement to support Honduran efforts to improve public financial management and create more effective and transparent public-private partnerships.

The State Department website for the embassy in Honduras explains that in order to obtain a visa, the applicant must establish they meet all requirements to receive a visa. The website even includes a ‘visa wizard’ that aids in the application process to determine the specific visa that best fits the case.

There is a fraud unit at all embassies and if fraud is committed during in the visa process, benefits are lost, fines are applied and a jail sentence can be applied.

There is yet another requirement for travel and approval to enter the United States, vaccines.

They include: mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria, pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae/type B, hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, meningococcal disease, varicella, pneumococcal disease, and seasonal influenza.

So, given just the vaccine requirements, detention in either Mexico or the United States for those attempting to enter the United States is warranted. The cost however of medical examinations and detention is significant and government agencies cannot estimate those costs to the taxpayer.

Now, here is something quite curious:

Who is a refugee?

According to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, a refugee is defined as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…”

  • Asylum seekers have submitted a claim for refugee status and are waiting for this claim to be accepted or rejected.
  • Refugees and asylees comprise the majority of displaced persons resettled to the United States.

What are the top countries of origin and asylum*?

The top ten countries of refugee origin are Afghanistan, Iraq, Somali, DR Congo, Myanmar, Colombia, Sudan, Vietnam, Eritrea, and China.

The top ten countries of refugee asylum are Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Germany, Jordan, Kenya, Chad, China, United States, and United Kingdom.

* Countries are listed in order from greatest to least number of refugees as of Dec 2010.

Source: UNHCR Global Trends (2010)

Statistics on International Refugees and US Domestic Refugee Admissions:

Source: UNHCR, 2009 Global Trends: Refugee, Asylum-Seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless People

  • As of 2009, an estimated 15.2 million refugees were located around the world. Of these refugees, 251,500 were voluntarily repatriated to their home nations.
  • In 2011, the United States accepted 56,424 refugees for resettlement.

Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS)

The U.S. has projected a refugee resettlement ceiling of 76,000 individuals for FY 2012.
Source: Presidential Determination No. 2011-17: FY 2012 Refugee Admissions Numbers

Immigrant, Refugee and Migrant Health Branch (IRMH)

The goal of the IRMH Branch within the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine is to promote and improve the health of immigrants, refugees, and migrants and prevent the importation of infectious diseases and other conditions of public health significance into the U.S. by these groups. To accomplish this goal the IRMH branch plays a significant role in refugee health, both overseas and domestically.


  • IRMH develops and implements the Technical Instructions used by overseas panel physicians who are responsible for conducting the medical examinations for U.S.-bound refugees. The Technical Instructions consist of medical screening guidelines, which outline in detail the scope of the medical examination. The purpose of the medical examination is to identify, for the Department of State and the US Citizenship and Immigration service, applicants with medical conditions of public health concern.
  • IRMH also maintains an anonymous collection of surplus blood samples from overseas screenings called the Migrant Serum Bank (MSB). Scientists from around the world can request to use the samples for research projects.


  • The Domestic Refugee Health Program facilitates collaboration with state and local health department partners to improve the health care and monitor medical conditions of refugees after their arrival into the United States.
  • IRMH also maintains the Electronic Disease Notification System (EDN), which notifies states and local health departments of the arrival of refugees to their jurisdictions. EDN provides states with overseas medical screening results and treatment follow-up information for each refugee.

IRMH Partners

To accomplish its goals in refugee health, IRMH works with many external partners:


President Trump – Fight Fire with Fire

By: Thomas Wigand | New Zeal

We’re coming for your country. All of it. Hand It over! Now!

In the months leading up to the 2016 elections we had waves of “unaccompanied minors” (a/k/a “the children”) flamboyantly crossing our borders. They’re still here.

Now in the months leading up to the 2018 midterms we have entire “families” flamboyantly approaching the border in “caravans” – organized, aided and abetted by some group calling itself Pueblo Sin Fronteras.  Presumably it is another of the AstroTurf groups funded by George Soros et als. (Query why these groups U.S. operations aren’t being prosecuted for conspiracy?  Paging Attorney General Sessions …Hello?  Hello? Is anybody home?)

Keep in mind that this all fits the usual Leftist / Progressive tactic of escalation.  This latest wave is a test, and if even only partially successful — even if that initial “success” is only to create a media controversy for the “mainstream media” to gin-up Democrat turnout in November and take the House (if not the Senate too) — more waves will follow. Ever-larger waves.  Tidal waves.  Tsunamis of illegal aliens engulfing our country.

This first horde approaching the U.S. border is being trained to ask for “asylum” and request “refugee status.”  In the “catch and release” model – recently expanded by the Ryan-McConnell omnibus bill – they will be released into the United States, without “extreme vetting.” Some years from now they’ll be summoned to court to process their refugee application.  As asylum seekers and “refugees” they become “legal” residents of the United States – able to work (those that choose to) and get “benefits” (welfare).

It seems certain that this is a deliberate effort to reenact the Muslim-into-Europe “refugee” model of storming the borders and demanding  (and getting) “refugee” status – forever after to inhabit, culturally occupy and irreparably change the host (targeted) country.  And to live off of its welfare teat as this is being accomplished.  Barack Hussein Obama’s dream from his father of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” would be accomplish by weaponizing demographics and deliberate hobbling of our immigration laws.  Obama and his fellow Progressives ultimately want open borders and mass amnesty — effectively citizenship on demand for anyone who walks across our unsecured borders and thus paving the way for the dissolution of the United States of America in all but name.

Club Gitmo. The walls are already built. Oh, and what beautiful, effective walls they are.

We must nip this in the bud.  It’s time to fight fire with fire.  Invoke our anti-terrorism laws and use our military.  Declare that each “undocumented” “migrant” crossing the border has to be processed as a potential terrorist, and treat them accordingly.  As these invaders cross the border, with the so-called “mainstream media” tipped-off to exact arrival points and cameras at the ready, the Border Patrol should be instructed to “catch and release” them – right on to C-130’s waiting to transport the “refugees” for housing at Gitmo.  There we can engage in “extreme vetting” to screen for terrorists that may have infiltrated their ranks … and then to hold all of the rest as they await their court dates some years hence.  Once Gitmo is at capacity, tell the U.N. to ship some refugee camp tents to our southern states, and we’ll set up barbed wire enclosed “refugee camps” to “extreme vet” them, and then house them until their court hearings some years hence.  And the millions of illegal aliens waiting in the wings will be forced to reconsider whether they want to “seek asylum” and “become refugees.”

Club Gitmo?  Sí, se puede!

Mr. Wigand is the author of Communiqués From the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracywhich is available on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions.  Comments or questions for Mr. Wigand may be sent to: [email protected]— he will make every effort to personally respond to every email.


Judge To Tennessee: You’ll Take Refugees Whether You Want To Or Not

By: James Simpson | The Federalist

Last March, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) initiated a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of the Tennessee legislature, charging the refugee resettlement program imposes unconstitutional unfunded mandates, requiring states to pay for resettlement whether they participate in the federal program or not. For a year, the sides engaged in legal maneuvers while the judge dawdled.

This March, despite multiple Supreme Court rulings that the federal government cannot compel states to pay for unfunded federal mandates, the judge dismissed the case. He claimed the state of Tennessee, while fully responsible for financing the state’s share of resettlement program costs, did not have standing to bring the suit.

Many aspects of the refugee resettlement program force states and local governments to continue to accept refugees even if they choose not to participate in the program, and pay for a laundry list of services to those refugees once resettled. The lawsuit focused specifically on the requirement for the state to pay exorbitant Medicaid costs or risk losing up to $7 billion in federal Medicaid reimbursements, an amount equal to 20 percent of the entire state budget.

In his 43-page decision, the judge ruled that, according to Tennessee law, only the Tennessee attorney general had the authority to sue, but would not have standing anyway because the state had not first attempted to gain relief through an administrative appeal directly to the federal government. (Tennessee’s attorney general and governor had declined to back the suit.) Thus the state would be put in the impossible position of having to first lose some or all of that $7 billion before it could sue.

The case demonstrates how convoluted the refugee resettlement program is, and despite the enormous burdens it places on state and local taxpayers, has remained resistant to successful challenge.

Sticking It to Tennessee for Obeying the Law

The day after the decision, the Center for Immigration Studies held a discussion at the National Press Club, “Should States Be Able to Opt Out of the Refugee Resettlement Program?” In attendance were CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian, CIS refugee resettlement expert Don Barnett, TMLC President Richard Thompson, and St. Cloud, Minnesota, City Councilman Jeff Johnson.

Remarking on the ruling, Thompson stated, “The judge basically backed off because it was too controversial and ruled on the basis of standing of the legislature to bring the lawsuit, and standing of some very courageous individual legislators who put their name in the lawsuit as well.”

“It reminds me of the tale of two legislatures,” he said. “On the one hand, you have the General Assembly of Tennessee taking a strong stand, believing that the government is wrong, and yet not violating the rule that the government has set. They go into court through the due-process aspects of the case and make a case that this government is violating the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause. On the other hand, you have the tale of a California legislature who says I don’t give a d-mn what the federal government says and they go ahead and violate whatever rules that they feel that they can get away with.”

Thompson said he believed the decision had numerous holes, and if the plaintiffs were willing, he would appeal, as far as the Supreme Court if necessary.

Refugee Resettlement Affects Communities

The panel focused on the lawsuit and an excellent analysis of the issue published in January by Don Barnett. Barnett noted, “When the Obama administration raised the refugee admission quota for fiscal year 2017 to 110,000 – a really great raise over his average. His average is probably about 75,000 a year. So it was raised to 110,000 on the way out. New Jersey, Maine, Kansas, and Texas formally withdrew from the program. Actually, however, this is a program that states can never leave.”

Johnson has seen refugee resettlement problems played out in his community up close. With a rapidly expanding Somali refugee population, St. Cloud is beset with a crime rate 92 percent higher than the state average, the prospect of terrorism (last September a Somali Muslim refugee stabbed 10 people at the local mall before being shot and killed by an off-duty policeman), and cultural clashes.

Johnson gained notoriety last October when he proposed a resolution declaring a moratorium on refugee resettlement to St. Cloud. Despite strong support from city residents, the council overwhelmingly rejected Johnson’s proposal.

Don’t Want to Run a Refugee Program? Tough

The 1980 Refugee Act created the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program, which uses private, tax-exempt organizations called “voluntary agencies” or “VOLAGs,” and a network of subsidiaries, called “affiliates,” to resettle refugees within the United States. These organizations are paid by the head to resettle refugees. The act requires consultation with state and local governments before refugees can be resettled, and allows states to opt out of the program altogether.

The act also promised to cover the state portion of federal welfare program costs for refugees for three years. This was an important factor in passing the act because refugees use welfare at rates much higher that of U.S. citizens or even other immigrant groups.

Recent court decisions in Texas and Alabamahave questionably declared the “consultation” provision advisory only. VOLAGs largely ignore it anyway. Furthermore, by 1991 the federal government had stopped providing reimbursement to states for the state share of refugee welfare costs.

Finally, in 1995, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the Department of Health and Human Services created a regulation (45 CFR 400.301) allowing VOLAGs to take over the role of state governments in refugee resettlement when those states choose to drop out of the program.

States that opt out become known as “Wilson-Fish“ states, named after a 1984 refugee law proposed by Reps. Pete Wilson and Hamilton Fish that suggested alternative ways for refugees to receive welfare. The regulation, however, is not based on the actual law. ORR essentially invented it to continue taxpayer-funded resettlement in states that no longer willingly participate.

When States Aren’t In Charge, the Numbers Spike

VOLAGs receive anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 for each refugee they resettle, so they seek to maximize refugee numbers, and find it much easier to place more in states with no oversight. The numbers make the case.

Between fiscal year 2002 (the earliest state-by-state data available) and fiscal year 2017, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas dropped out. Of these, five have been run by VOLAGs long enough to compare resettlement data before the state left the program and after. The table below shows the results.

Note that even in just the first year, refugee resettlement in those states shot up an average of more than 50 percent. In total, these states have seen an average annual increase of 127 percent since they relinquished program oversight.

Source: Refugee Processing Center; Interactive Reporting; www.wrapsnet.org.

As a result of all these factors, the refugee resettlement program has evolved into a largely unfunded mandate on states, and especially in Wilson-Fish states. The TMLC complaint specifically charged:

Defendants have exceeded and, absent relief from this Court, will continue to exceed the powers granted to the federal government under the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution as well as the limits imposed upon the federal government by the Tenth Amendment, thereby infringing upon the constitutionally-protected sovereignty and powers of the State of Tennessee.

Defendants included the U.S. Departments of State and Heath and Human Services, their respective refugee resettlement offices and leadership, including former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and HHS Secretary Tom Price. The government, under newly appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, filed for dismissal. Perhaps Sessions was overwhelmed in his new job and poorly served by those underneath him, but this was one opportunity to rein in the out-of-control refugee program.

The House Judiciary Committee under Bob Goodlatte introduced the Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act (H.R. 2826), last June. Among other things, it assures that states that leave the program will not get more refugees against their will. The bill has languished in committee.

But there is a much easier way to accomplish the same goal. That would simply be to rescind regulation 45 CFR 400.301. The administration could do this today, giving Wilson-Fish states an immediate break. Then the lawsuit could continue its long march through the courts on appeal until it reaches a sane jurist. It would then be immediately declared unconstitutional, and that would be the end of the story.

James Simpson is an economist, author and investigative journalist. His latest book is “The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.” Follow Jim on Twitterand Facebook.


The judges challenge Trump

By: James Simpson | American Thinker

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Philip Gutierrez issued an order preventing President Trump from revoking DACA protections, and is ordering the administration to reinstate all those who have been dropped from the program.  This is more astounding judicial overreach in a year marred by such actions.  The initial DACA program was a memo, not legislation, not even a legitimate executive order or regulation.  Trump has every right as president to revoke it and enforce that revocation, but this judge has the gall to say he can’t.

An earlier circuit court decision handed down in January, blocked Trump from ending DACA in the first place – an action he had initiated last year.  The Department of Justice issued an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to override this decision, but on Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not hear it.  While this is standard practice when an issue is being litigated in lower courts, the clear abuse of power exercised by these lower courts should compel the Supremes to consider this a special case.

We have been watching this outrageous judicial usurpation of power for a full year.  It is sheer lawlessness and has to stop.  All public officials swear an oath to protect and defend, not subvert, the Constitution.  What they are doing is a threat to the very legal foundations of our Republic.

There is only one punitive remedy that can be taken against such judges.  Congress can impeach them.  Unfortunately, Congress has impeached only 15 federal judges in its entire history, and only eight of those were actually removed.  A good example is the case of Alcee I. Hastings (another U.S. district court judge), who was impeached for accepting a $150,000 bribe to reduce sentences for two mobsters.  That is certainly a clear-cut case for impeachment, not to mention significant jail time, but so are these overtly partisan decisions made by judges specifically to thwart the irrefutable authority vested in the presidency.

This kind of legal subversion is actually much more egregious, because it threatens the entire legal structure of our country.  If these jurists can successfully usurp the authority of a democratically elected president, it essentially negates the election.  To the extent that this is allowed to stand, our nation is no longer a republic, but increasingly resembles a third-world dictatorship.

There is a precedent to convict for such behavior, but not much of one.  Supreme Court judge Samuel Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1804 for actions described as “tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan” (sic).  Unfortunately, the Senate failed to convict, and his case is said to have insulated Supreme Court justices from similar action ever since.

The Supreme Court did hand President Trump a victory on the immigration front this week.  It will not affect the DACA controversy, but puts to rest some other legal challenges to Trump’s arrest and deportation of criminal aliens.  Not surprisingly, this was a defeat for the 9th Circuit, where much of the court obstruction to Trump’s immigration policies is originating.  The government can now hold criminal aliens indefinitely and can deny bail.

lower court also ruled this week that the administration could waive environmental regulations to expedite construction of the border wall.  So the week was not a complete loss, but it remains frustrating that certain blatantly partisan jurists continue to abuse their power in obstructing the Trump administration’s electoral mandate to reverse President Obama’s most egregious unconstitutional actions.


Trapper’s Quote Of The Week

By: Trapper Pettit

In today’s political climate, inequality is anything but equal. When illegals claim an equal legality… based on the privilege afforded by breaking the law… all things being equal… this is nuts.


#SOTU: Trump’s Four Pillars of Immigration has a Fatal Flaw

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

President Trump at the State of the Union Address on January 30 2018

President Trump’s State of the Union Address was inspiring and frankly, the best I have ever seen. The entire speech was moving, and President Trump inspired the country and the world. The vast majority of the Democrats exposed themselves as petty and ridiculous.

President Trump, however, has doubled down on his insistence that there be a “path to citizenship” for the 1.8 million illegal immigrants that would be eligible for DACA as it stands, not just those who have signed up. President Trump did not mention the fate of the parents of the young illegal immigrants, who presumably would get to stay under his proposal.

As has been documented repeatedly at TrevorLoudon.com, Democrats do not care about illegal immigrants as individual human beings, but they care very much about their vote. Trevor Loudon, therefore, describes illegal immigration as “the greatest security threat we face.”

Here is a transcript from last night’s address about illegal immigration:

Over the next few weeks, the House and Senate will be voting on an immigration reform package.

In recent months, my Administration has met extensively with both Democrats and Republicans to craft a bipartisan approach to immigration reform. Based on these discussions, we presented the Congress with a detailed proposal that should be supported by both parties as a fair compromise — one where nobody gets everything they want, but where our country gets the critical reforms it needs.

Here are the four pillars of our plan:

The first pillar of our framework generously offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age — that covers almost three times more people than the previous administration. Under our plan, those who meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be able to become full citizens of the United States.

The second pillar fully secures the border. That means building a wall on the Southern border, and it means hiring more heroes like CJ to keep our communities safe. Crucially, our plan closes the terrible loopholes exploited by criminals and terrorists to enter our country — and it finally ends the dangerous practice of “catch and release.”

The third pillar ends the visa lottery — a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of our people. It is time to begin moving towards a merit-based immigration system — one that admits people who are skilled, who want to work, who will contribute to our society, and who will love and respect our country.

The fourth and final pillar protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration. Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives. Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children. This vital reform is necessary, not just for our economy, but for our security, and our future.

In recent weeks, two terrorist attacks in New York were made possible by the visa lottery and chain migration. In the age of terrorism, these programs present risks we can no longer afford.
It is time to reform these outdated immigration rules, and finally bring our immigration system into the 21st century.

These four pillars represent a down-the-middle compromise, and one that will create a safe, modern, and lawful immigration system.

Watch the SOTU HERE and give one of our favorite Facebook pages a “like”:

Here is a short clip of Trevor Loudon’s hard-hitting documentary, the Enemies Within which explains how the radical left exploits illegal immigrants to get their votes.

Using their own words, Loudon compiled a montage of the most dedicated DACA activists such as Rep. Luis Gutiérrez and former Obama advisor Eliseo Medina.

Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said:

“…when they voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up


“We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters”. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?

If we have eight million new voters who care about …… and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle…


Watch and circulate Trevor Loudon’s shocking documentary The Enemies Within as widely as you can before November 2018. It is a vote changing experience.


Read more: