03/25/17

Federal Judge Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban – Observes the Rule of Law, Not ‘Fuzzy Feelings’

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Right Wing News

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Judge Anthony Trenga, a federal judge in Virginia, has ruled that President Trump’s executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries should stand and is valid. This is in direct contrast to judges in Hawaii, Washington and Maryland who have blocked the order. What this means is the issue has now been ruled on in multiple districts with opposing results and it will now make its way to the Supreme Court for adjudication.

Judge Trenga has said in his ruling that President Trump has the authority to restrict or bar physical entry into the United States. He has also said that the executive order does not mention religion and protects Americans from terrorist attacks. He said that rhetoric on the campaign trail should not be held against the President and that the order is valid. It is not discriminatory as a Palestinian activist has claimed.

From TheBlaze:

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday upholding President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order that temporarily bans travel from six Muslim-majority states.

Judge Anthony Trenga, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, said in his 32-page ruling that Trump was legally allowed to ban travel from those specific countries and that the executive order was not discriminatory in nature as the Palestinian activist who filed the lawsuit requesting an injunction had suggested.

Trenga wrote that the president “has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He also pointed out that the executive order itself does not mention religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.

The decision comes after federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland both blocked key components of the executive order.

Trenga said that even though Trump used the phrase “Muslim ban” as rhetoric on the campaign trail, it shouldn’t be held against the president with regard to the executive order, as the judge in Hawaii previously suggested.

“[T]he Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter,’ ” Trenga wrote.

This is very good news for President Trump and I am confident that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor as these powers lie indisputably with the executive branch of government. As Young Conservatives points out, the judge didn’t view Trump’s campaign rhetoric about a “Muslim ban” as being dispositive and did not accord it the weight that Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii did.

The ruling by Judge Trenga in Virginia is actually a normal interpretation of the law. Law is typically interpreted based on the actual case law involved… not in an interpretation of what a judge thinks someone means or on something that has been said concerning the case. That is considered subjective. You don’t look beyond the intent of the executive order… not past the four corners of the document. The order is clear and specific, therefore should be weighed on its merits, not a judge’s interpretation. It is the purview of the President to set immigration policy, not the courts. Judge Trenga ruled correctly on this matter and so will the Supreme Court.

03/25/17

Nebraska Democrats Push Voter Fraud With Refugees Through ‘Welcome Baskets’ [VIDEO]

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Right Wing News

Say it with me now… VOTER FRAUD. In Nebraska, Democrats are giving refugees gift baskets that include all kinds of nifty items – such as voter registration forms. A refugee cannot legally vote in the US, but that isn’t stopping the Nebraska Democratic Party from pushing voter fraud as refugees arrive in the Cornhusker State. Nebraska Democratic Party [NDP] chairwoman Jane Kleeb is just gushing and proud as punch in the video below. She’s giddy over breaking the law. How typical.

Over 50 gift baskets were collected for refugees and filled to overflowing with diapers, toilet paper, linen and food. But right on top is that voter registration form. I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘Democrat’ wasn’t already checked off for them. What shocked me is her claim that Nebraska now takes in more refugees than any state in the union. Remember, President Trump’s travel ban is having issues at the moment. I would have thought Nebraskans had more sense than this, but evidently not.

From Conservative Review:

The Nebraska Democratic Party is welcoming refugees with open arms, welcome baskets … and voter registration forms.

A donation drive organized by the NDP collected some 50 gift baskets for refugees. Each contained items like diapers and kitchen utensils, a welcome letter from the Nebraska Democratic Party signed by its chairwoman Jane Kleeb, and a voter registration form, according to a video posted to Facebook by the Nebraska Democratic Party.

The video, posted Saturday March 18, discusses the details of the “Refugee Welcome Basket” project and was recorded at the Nebraska Democratic Party’s Spring Meeting.

“Nebraska has, and welcomes the most refugees and immigrants on a per-capita basis,” Kleeb explains in the video as she describes the workshops set up by the NDP. The state welcomed 1,441 refugees, or 76 per 100,000 Nebraskans, between October 2015 and September 2016, according to a report by the Omaha World-Herald.

“When [President Trump] put in his racist travel ban we put out a call to action to Democrats across the state saying ‘help us create welcome baskets for refugee and immigrant families who are making Nebraska their home,’” she says.

Kleeb on the welcome baskets: “We made sure that we had individuals write a little note to the families. And that inside each basket there’s also a letter from the Nebraska Democratic Party welcoming the family to Nebraska. It’s signed by me as chair of the party. And then we include a sticker in there for them to put on their car. It also includes a voter registration form.” Do tell… I’m not sure why they need a sticker for a car they don’t have and can’t afford, but I’m positive the voter registration form is to encourage voter fraud and Kleeb seemingly has no problem with that.

The Conservative Review lays out the law here: “The inclusion of a voter registration form in a ‘welcome’ gift basket designed for refugee families is eyebrow-raising. Individuals with refugee status in the United States are only allowed to naturalize after they spend a minimum of five years in the U.S. and obtain permanent residence (a green card).” When Kleeb was cornered by Conservative Review on her knowledge that refugees are not allowed to vote, she responded with, “I’m not sure.” Right… anyone who believes that is brain dead.

Kleeb unintentionally spelled out the truth of the actions of NDP when asked why they are giving refugees voter registration forms… “That’s just what Democrats do.” Yes, it is and that’s the problem.

02/13/17

It’s Time to Impeach the Judges

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

She endorsed him, and he paid respects at her funeral, but it appears that President Donald Trump hasn’t read Phyllis Schlafly’s book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It. Rather than simply Tweet his disgust with rulings against his immigration executive order, Trump and his advisers should read the book, especially Schlafly’s Chapter 15. It offers a series of measures, including impeachment, to stop tyrannical judges.

Originally published in 2004, the book is available as a free download at Schlafly’s Eagle Forum website.

It’s a mess, a complete mess, is what Trump might say of the rulings against his executive order. But as President, he can do something about it. Yet, he has simply issued a series of Tweets, one of the latest being that “dangerous” foreigners are being allowed into the U.S. because of the judicial rulings. But since when do judges decide the foreign or immigration policies of the United States? Where is that written in law or the Constitution?

Two conservative scholars, Dr. John C. Eastman and Hans von Spakovsky, have clearly explained how the judicial rulings against the order are not based on law or the Constitution. What is lacking is an effort by the administration and Congress to remove or restrict the power of tyrannical judges who present their own liberal personal opinions as expressions of the facts and the law.

In matters like this, the media are careful to outline the bounds of acceptable legal opinion. Hence, it is assumed in much of the coverage and commentary that Trump has no option other than to abide by the judicial rulings. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Schlafly’s book explains.

In his column, Eastman writes, “…the notion that a single federal trial court judge can take it upon himself to determine national security and immigration policy, in the face of explicit determinations made by the president with the full support of law actually adopted by Congress, is so far beyond the judicial role as to pose a serious threat, not just to our national security, but to the rule of law.”

Columnist J.B. Williams argues that Trump’s new head of the Department of Homeland Security, General John F. Kelly, appeared to be taking orders from unelected judges instead of the Commander-in-Chief when he issued a statement promising “compliance” with the court order. This constituted a “mutiny” against the President, Williams argued. Kelly knows “that the order issued by Trump was both legal and necessary to the security of the United States and that the Commander-in-Chief had the full authority to issue that directive,” he wrote.

Trump and his advisers should read Schlafly’s book to understand the damage that has already been done by these tyrannical judges.

A lawyer who wrote more than a dozen books, Schlafly listed many examples of how judges have rewritten the Constitution, noting how they have:

  • censored the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;
  • removed the Ten Commandments from public schools, buildings, and parks;
  • changed the definition of marriage;
  • banned the acknowledgment of God in public schools, at graduations, and at football games;
  • imposed taxes and spending of taxpayers’ money;
  • rewritten laws of criminal procedures;
  • dismantled laws that protect internal security; and
  • upheld racial preferences and quotas in hiring and college admissions

Schlafly wrote, “The cancer of judicial supremacy will not go away until the American people rise up and repudiate it. It’s time for the American people to notify their elected representatives, federal and state, that it is their mission to restore the Constitution with its proper balance among the three branches of the federal government. We must save self government from the rule of judges. The whole future of America depends on it.”

The future is now. The American people don’t have to wait for Judge Neil Gorsuch or others to be confirmed to the high court for this problem to be rectified. The President and the Congress can, and should, take action right now.

Schlafly’s steps to terminate the rule of judges and restore constitutional self-government include:

  • Reforming Senate rules so liberals are not able to defeat constitutionalist nominees by preventing the Senate from voting them up or down;
  • Curbing the power of the judicial supremacists by legislating exceptions to court jurisdiction;
  • Prohibiting the spending of federal money to enforce obnoxious decisions handed down by judicial supremacists;
  • Congress should impeach federal judges who make outrageous rulings that have no basis in the Constitution; and
  • Congress should prohibit federal courts from relying on foreign laws, administrative rules, or court decisions.

Columnist J.B. Williams wonders if Trump is really up to this task. He asks if the President has the backbone to fight and defeat these anti-American activists in the courts in order to “drain this swamp?” He then asks, “Do his appointees, like General Kelly and Jeff Sessions, really have what it takes to put these illegal activists in their place and return this country to the rule of constitutional law?”

In his statement on her passing, Trump called Phyllis Schlafly “a conservative icon who led millions to action, reshaped the conservative movement, and fearlessly battled globalism and the ‘kingmakers’ on behalf of America’s workers and families.”

One of her best and most relevant books was The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It. Trump’s advisers should purchase or download copies of the book and provide them to members of the Cabinet and members of Congress. The book outlines how the president can go beyond Tweets in curbing the power of tyrannical judges.

If Trump and his Cabinet are serious about draining the swamp, writes J.B. Williams, the left must be stopped from using activist judges to thwart Trump’s attempts to secure the USA and enforce our laws. “Or else,” he writes, “the notion of draining this swamp is a joke!”

Trump is now in a position to confront the “kingmakers” in the courts. But he must do more than Tweet his disapproval of them. In his words, they are so-called judges. But recognizing their authority by filing another set of appeals is not the answer. He must seek their removal from the bench.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

02/11/17

Trump’s Court Battle in Perspective

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Now that a federal appeals court panel has upheld the freeze on President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigration, he will likely have his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the not too distant future. This may have been an unforced error on the part of the President. While I believe it was wrong and counter-productive for President Trump to belittle the Washington state judge and suggest that even a “bad high school student” would understand the law, the media, in their hyper-hostility toward Trump, are demonstrating their complete double standard. Where was their criticism of Obama when he attacked and pressured the courts to rule in his favor, or condemned them after rulings went against him? The press was missing in action.

President Obama wasn’t shy about criticizing the courts. He did so during his 2010 State of the Union address where he criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United. “With all due deference to separation of powers,” said Obama, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel A. Alito made news by mouthing “Not true” in response to the president’s comments.

Just “two days before oral arguments” in the Obamacare case known as King v. Burwell, writes Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, Obama told Reuters, “In our view, [there was] not a plausible legal basis for striking [the IRS rule] down.”

As we reported at the time, a favorable outcome of King v. Burwell could have gutted Obamacare subsidies, but the media predictably “marshaled their forces in defense of Obama and his signature legislation.”

Why did the media, time and again, come to Obama’s aid? It was because the media were generally in support of Obama’s agenda, and more importantly, chose to cover for him and protect his legacy and political viability.

Yet, as Blackman writes, “It is wrong when Trump does it [criticize the courts]. It was wrong when Obama did it.”

Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute finds that the Supreme Court decided unanimously against the Obama administration 44 times, nearly 50 percent more than under Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.

In other words, Obama’s attempts to expand the power of the executive branch was widespread and pervasive, and he often could not win favor for his agenda, even from the two Supreme Court justices that he had named to the court. “But the reason Obama was hit with so many more unanimous decisions was because he went rogue early on, asking his staff to look for novel theories that would allow him to move forward with implementing his agenda,” writes Merrill Matthews for Rare. “And if that meant twisting the Constitution—and basic logic—to get it, so what?”

“President Obama…stands alone in his pointed and directed arguments to the Supreme Court,” argues Blackman. “The forty-fourth president, himself a former constitutional law lecturer, has set a new precedent for ex parte arguments [by one side only] to the Supreme Court.”

The media have also continued a double standard in their coverage of presidential executive power. One example of Obama’s executive overreach, although not tied to executive orders, is when he exchanged five high-ranking members of the Taliban held at Guantanamo for deserter Bowe Bergdahl “without following a statutory notice requirement.” Another, the Post writes, is the “job-destroying environmental regulations” created by Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency. And yet another was when Obama unilaterally changed an immigration law by ending the “wet foot dry foot” policy that had “allowed most Cuban migrants who reach U.S. soil to stay and become legal permanent residents after one year.” That was a sop to the communist regime that has gripped Cuba for nearly six decades. Where were the protests then?

On a recent segment of MSNBC’s “The 11th Hour with Brian Williams,” Ali Velshi, formerly of CNN and Al Jazeera, said that “We’re now into our third presidency where executive orders and White House action is deemed more important. George W. Bush, with the help of Dick Cheney, started this with a lot of executive orders. President Obama wasn’t shy about that. He approached it differently with a lot more legal backing to his executive orders. Donald Trump has taken this to a new level.”

Velshi’s statement is false in several ways. First, if Obama failed before the Supreme Court so many times, it is hard to argue that he had more legal backing for his actions.

Second, executive actions have been used more frequently by a number of presidents throughout history—far exceeding the usage by recent presidents. For example, The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara finds that Franklin D. Roosevelt issued approximately 307 executive orders per year, dwarfing Obama’s 35 per year and George W. Bush’s 36 per year. In addition, Bill Clinton issued an average of 46 per year, Ronald Reagan 48 per year and Jimmy Carter 80 per year. President Trump hasn’t had enough time to demonstrate the number of executive orders that he will use over the next four or eight years.

It’s true that it’s not always about the quantity of executive orders, as much as it is about the substance of those orders, as Jonah Goldberg of National Review pointed out: “The entire issue of executive orders amounts to misdirection. The serious complaint is that Obama is abusing executive powers (which he is) not that he’s abusing executive orders (which he may or may not be).” Citing The Washington Post, Goldberg adds: “While Obama issued only 20 executive orders in 2013 (the lowest single-year total in more than a century), that same year he issued 41 presidential memoranda to the heads of departments and agencies, along with nine additional presidential ‘determinations’ designed to serve as the basis for bureaucratic behavior.”

While Trump’s rate of executive overreach is unknown, it is clear that he is not holding back in criticizing the courts. “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” tweeted Trump.

Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, told Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut (D) that he finds criticism in general of a judge’s integrity and independence to be “demoralizing and disheartening.”

This, of course, made major national news. But Obama himself criticized the courts and bullied them to rule in his favor.

This is the state of our news media, which goes to great lengths to protect Democrats and the progressive agenda, and goes on the attack against Obama’s successor. Predictably, the media are unwilling to acknowledge their blatant double standard on executive action and criticism of the courts.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

02/9/17

Trump’s Immigration Pause and the Media Backlash

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

The mainstream media continue their misleading reporting about President Donald Trump’s executive order, which calls for temporarily limiting immigration into the United States from seven countries, and a review of refugee policy. The media have blatantly sought to undermine Trump’s initiatives.

Judge James Robart, who serves on the District Court for the Western District of Washington State, asked the Department of Justice representative, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?” Robart then continued, saying, “The answer to that is none, as best I can tell.”

Well, Judge Robart is wrong. Data provided to Congress indicates that between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, “at least 60” persons from those seven countries were convicted “of terror-related offenses,” writes Byron York for The Washington Examiner. There may have been more, since an additional 129 persons convicted of these crimes were “of unknown origin,” York reports.

Yet ABC News sought to downplay the security risk individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen pose. Instead, it reports that “Only eight of the 78 attacks that appeared on a White House list of terrorist incidents over the past two years were committed by individuals from the seven countries affected by Donald Trump’s immigration order…”

In other words, ABC is arguing that the travel pause would have little national security benefit. “In fact, the list provided by the White House shows Americans were responsible for more attacks than those from the seven banned countries combined,” reports ABC News.

The media have clearly chosen a side in the debate about the travel pause, and are willing to deceive their audience. In a recent appearance on CNN’s The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer got into a discussion with Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) over Obama’s immigration record, and its similarity to Trump’s recent immigration executive order.

“There’s absolutely no evidence that this [Trump’s action] is unconstitutional or illegal,” said Labrador, a former immigration attorney, on CNN. “In fact, the President of the United States, our previous president, President Obama, did the same actions three times during his administration. There wasn’t a single protest.”

“There were some nuance—there were some differences. We don’t have to go through all of that,” replied Blitzer.

Why did Blitzer not want to get into specifics with Rep. Labrador? It might have informed his viewers. Instead, Blitzer aired a misleading clip featuring former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

According to the edited clip, Giuliani stated, “When he [Trump] first announced it, he said Muslim ban. He called me up, he said, put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.”

Blitzer doubled down after airing the misleading Giuliani clip, saying, “So, basically, what Rudy Giuliani helped him come up with was this formula for having a Muslim ban, but not calling it a Muslim ban.”

LABRADOR: You’re misleading a little bit, Wolf.
BLITZER: Tell me why.
LABRADOR: If you listen to the entire interview…Rudy Giuliani said…that a Muslim ban would be unconstitutional, illegal.
BLITZER: You believe that?

Blitzer, like so many in the media, is skeptical that Trump might have had other than bigoted motives. He is clearly taking a side in this argument, and abandoning journalistic impartiality.

NBC had been called out just the day before for showing this deceptively edited clip. In full context, Giuliani continued by saying, “And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on.”

Opponents of Trump’s travel pause claim that the President’s immigration executive order is religiously motivated and discriminatory. So, too, The Wall Street Journal reports that critics note that “all seven affected nations are majority Muslim…”

The media, and Democrats, are engaging in hysteria by labeling this a “Muslim ban.” This is worse than hyperbole—it is deception. After all, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries have significant Muslim populations and yet have not been blocked. An estimated 85 percent of all Muslims are not affected by Trump’s executive order.

We are right now contemplating no other countries,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Congress this week, admitting the executive order was rolled out too hastily, for which he himself took the blame.

“The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016,” wrote David French for National Review, in a sober analysis of what the executive order does and does not do. “Obama’s expansion was a departure from recent norms, not Trump’s contraction.”

To his detriment, President Trump appears to be getting in the way of his own potential success. He argued at a recent meeting of law enforcement officials in Washington that “A bad high school student would understand this. Anybody would understand this.” In other words, he argued, a clear reading of the law should grant the government victory in this case.

This is a misstep by Trump. It is, as The Hill reports, “highly unusual for presidents to publicly comment on court cases dealing with their policy proposals,” especially when a case is open.

Trump is also putting the judiciary in a position to directly challenge him; he has made this into a high-profile showdown with his inept utterances.

Trump also asserted that the media have not sufficiently covered terrorist incidents. Trump told troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa this week that “It’s gotten to a point where it’s [terror] not even reported, and in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t even want to report it.” His administration then issued a list of 78 attacks that had taken place between September 2014 and December 2016. The liberal media had a field day with the list, citing misspellings and proclaiming that they had covered many of those events, often for days at a time. National Public Radio (NPR), for example, claims this was false, because most news organizations covered the attacks in Paris; San Bernardino, California; the Orlando night club; and others.

But, as Robert Spencer points out for Jihad Watch, it is not the act of covering the attacks for which the media have been derelict—it is how these events are covered. “But in virtually all cases, they did all they could to obscure the motivating ideology behind those attacks,” writes Spencer. “They deliberately conceal and/or misrepresent the aspects of them that make it clear that they’re Islamic jihad attacks. This is in accord with the guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists, which tells journalists not to connect Islam with terrorism, and to obscure that connection wherever possible.”

Once a terrorist has been confirmed to have Islamic jihadist ties, the media then question whether the attacker was a “self-radicalized lone wolf.” Whether these jihadi terrorists were inspired by the Islamic State or al Qaeda, or were directed members of these terrorist groups, makes little difference. Islamic jihadist terrorists drink from the same poisonous well.

Perhaps the starkest example of the treatment of such an act, by the Obama administration and the media, was the case of Major Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 and injured 32 others at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas back in September of 2009. For approximately five years the case was treated as “workplace violence.” It wasn’t until 2015—nearly three years after 150 family members who struggled to pay their medical bills filed a lawsuit—that the government switched its position and gave the wounded victims Purple Hearts, which carried with them added medical benefits and the acknowledgement that they had been wounded in the line of duty.

As long as the public allows it, the media will continue to avoid honest discussions about the real terror threat that jihadists and potential terrorists from these seven countries—and others—pose to the health and welfare of American citizens.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]aim.org. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

01/24/17

Cruz and Poe Introduce Legislation for States to Reject Refugees

By: Denise Simon | FoundersCode.com

There is some additional help coming from the Trump administration as President Trump is likely to issue and sign executive order on immigration that will impact visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. These are worn torn countries where hostilities continue with terror organizations. An issue that still remains however that Trump has not addressed is the asylum seekers.

S. 2363 (114th): State Refugee Security Act of 2015

A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the Governor of a State to reject the resettlement of a refugee in that State unless there is adequate assurance that the alien does not present a security risk and for other purposes. The 2 page text is here.

New bill from Cruz, Poe would let states reject refugees

WT: Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would give governors the power to reject federal efforts to resettle refugees in their states.

The bill from Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Ted Poe, both of Texas, is a reaction to years of growing GOP frustration with the Obama administration’s aggressive effort to take in refugees and resettle them across the country. Republicans continue to have doubts that refugees can be vetted to ensure they aren’t Islamic State terrorists.

The State Refugee Security Act would require the federal government to notify states at least 21 days before they seek to settle a refugee. Under the bill, if a state governor certifies that the federal government hasn’t offered enough assurances that the refugee does not pose a security risk, the state can block the resettlement effort.

Poe said the Obama administration’s “open door policy” has forced states to take on refugees without these guarantees, and said states need a way to opt out.

“Until the federal government can conduct thorough security screenings and confirm that there are no security risks, Congress should empower states to be able to protect their citizens by refusing to participate in this program,” he said.

Cruz said the first obligation of the president is to keep Americans safe, and said the bill would be a step in that direction.

“I am encouraged that, unlike the previous administration, one of President Trump‘s top priorities is to defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” he said. “To augment the efforts of the new administration, this legislation I have introduced will reinforce the authority of the states and governors to keep their citizens safe.”

****

The Trump White House also has not addressed the issue of criminal deportation of foreign nationals. Each foreign inmate is known to cost the taxpayer an estimated $21,000 per year. Enforcement and removal operations of those illegal foreign nationals now falls to the newly confirmed DHS Secretary Kelly.

FY 2015 ICE Immigration Removals

In addition to its criminal investigative responsibilities, ICE shares responsibility for enforcing the nation’s civil immigration laws with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE’s role in the immigration enforcement system is focused on two primary missions: (1) the identification and apprehension of criminal aliens and other removable individuals located in the United States; and (2) the detention and removal of those individuals apprehended in the interior of the U.S., as well as those apprehended by CBP officers and agents patrolling our nation’s borders.

In executing these responsibilities, ICE has prioritized its limited resources on the identification and removal of criminal aliens and those apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States. This report provides an overview of ICE Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 civil immigration enforcement and removal operations. See FY 2015 ICE Immigration Removals Statistics

Expectations of a quick solution and immediate movement to address the immigration matter are misplaced as this will be a long slog of an operation and will take the coordination of several agencies including the U.S. State Department which is presently operating without a Secretary until Rex Tillerson is confirmed and sworn in. The fallout will include a diplomatic challenge which is many cases does need to occur, however other nations such as China and Russia will step in to intrude on the process including those at the United Nations level, falling into the lap of the newly confirmed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley.

06/27/16

‘Interstellar Migration:’ FDR explored sending ‘surplus’ people to outer space

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

FDR as a young man via Daily Beast

FDR as a young man via Daily Beast

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt explored the possibility of sending refugees from WWII to the planets Mars or Venus. The highly secretive research was titled the “M” project for FDR: studies on migration and settlement and was headed by anthropologist Henry Fields

The 66-volume study of population problems was eventually declassified and re-discovered by Mother Jones reporters in 1983 at the Temple University Library in West Philadelphia. According to Fields,

“Roosevelt ordered the massive research project so his administration would be prepared to deal with the millions of people left homeless as well as ‘surplus’ population in the postwar world.”

In addition to exploring remote areas of Africa or the Caribbean, one of the chapters of the report was “Interstellar Migration,” which claimed that “temporary quarters may eventually be established on Venus or Mars.”

Read more here…

06/18/16

We Need More Islamophobia, Not Less

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Obama

The media say President Obama is good at sharing condolences with victims of terrorism. It would be better for him to apologize to the victims and their families. He should start by saying, “I’m sorry that my FBI failed to stop this radical Islamic killer. I bear responsibility for this failure of intelligence.”

Orlando is where we really need an Obama apology tour to begin. In the past, he has apologized to foreigners for American foreign policy. Now he needs to apologize to Americans for allowing a foreign ideology to flourish in the United States, one which he has refused to name and condemn.

On Tuesday, when he rejected a ban on Muslim immigration, Obama said, “The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer—they were all U.S. citizens.” What was his point? That the Muslim refugees are not a threat but their children are? Is that supposed to be reassuring? Does it make sense to import more Muslims and let them raise children as Americans who then assume the foreign identity of the jihadists who want to kill us? Is that somehow acceptable? Doesn’t that increase the odds of having more killers on American soil?

Clearly, Obama is gambling with American lives, and Americans are losing their lives as a result. How many more will die, only to be remembered by Obama as he hugs the relatives of the victims?

No matter how he tries to spin it, the fact is that Omar Mateen was subject to two separate FBI investigations and was cleared both times. This is outrageous. Clearly, the FBI failed. And Obama failed in his constitutional obligations to protect the American people from foreign threats. Based on what he said about San Bernardino and Fort Hood, Obama knew the threat was real. But the terrorism keeps coming. Nothing seems to change.

On Monday, FBI director James Comey said the bureau would “look hard at our own work to see whether there is something we should have done differently.” But he had already come to a conclusion. “So far,” he said, “the honest answer is: I don’t think so.” Not even 24 hours had passed after the massacre and Comey had already conducted a thorough probe into the FBI’s handling of the case? Forty-nine people are dead and the FBI could not have done anything differently?

The FBI has done it Obama’s way for seven years. The Heritage Foundation’s David Inserra reports that there have been 22 plots or attacks since the start of 2015. The assault from radical Islam is accelerating, and yet it’s business as usual in the Obama administration and at the FBI. We are supposed to believe they are doing the best they can. If so, many more will die.

FBI Director Comey admits that in July of 2014 the killer’s name surfaced when the FBI Miami office was investigating “the Florida man who had blown himself up for the Nusra Front in Syria.” Comey said, “We learned from the investigation that the killer knew him casually from attending the same mosque in that area of Florida.” He added, “Our investigation turned up no ties of any consequence between the two of them.”

Omar Mateen and Moner-Muhammed Abu Salha, the Florida man referred to by Comey, are from St. Lucie County, Florida, and attended the same mosque. Is Comey suggesting it’s all just a coincidence? Does he really believe that? Does he expect us to believe that?

Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) postponed the release of a report, “Confronting Fear,” because of the carnage in Orlando. The report is about “Islamophobia,” a mental condition that is said to characterize those who want to expose radical Islam in the United States. If the FBI had displayed a small dose of Islamophobia, perhaps it could have stopped the slaughter.

CAIR is saying that those of us who want to live in peace away from these killers are guilty of “Islamophobia.” This writer surfaced on one of CAIR’s lists of “Islamophobic individuals.” CAIR picked my name off a list maintained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that has been advising the Justice Department and the FBI about the existence of “extremists” in American society. This would be funny if it were it not for the fact that people are dying because of this mentality, which is the real condition that should be characterized as an illness. These people are incapable of recognizing a threat that poses a very real danger to them and their families.

When your family members are killed by Islamic terrorists, will Obama’s hug be good enough for you?


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

04/4/16

2,000 ‘Ticking Time Bombs’ in U.S. – and Counting

Listen Live
Wednesday April 6th 6 PM EASTERN

Leo Hohmann, WND News Editor

Ticking1

will be interviewed by John McCulloch on:

Ticking2

Ticking3

Hohmann’s article exposes that a new American mosque opens every week and many preach jihad.

Experts on Islamic terrorism are calling the estimated 2,500 to 3,100 mosques in America “ticking time bombs.”

Dr. Mark Christian, president and founder of the Global Faith Institute, which seeks to educate Americans about the true nature of mainstream Islam, says about 80 percent of the roughly 2,800 U.S. mosques are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose stated goal is to bring the nations into compliance with Shariah law.

Dr Christian: “The more they [those living lives of sin according to Shariah] go to mosque, the more they find out that salvation does not come except by spilling their own blood for the cause of Islam. The fact is we are in a religious war whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not.”

Listen Live online – http://saleminteractivemedia.com/ListenLive/player/WDTKAM

Call-in to talk with Leo and John – 800-923-9385