Some news on the border wall with Mexico that went unnoticed ....
SAN DIEGO (AP) — Recent assaults by tactical teams on prototypes of President Donald Trump's proposed wall with Mexico found their imposing heights should stop border crossers, The Associated Press has learned, a finding that's likely to please security hawks but raise concerns about costs and environmental damage.
Military special forces based in Florida and U.S. Customs and Border Protection special units spent three weeks trying to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices, a U.S. official with direct knowledge of the rigorous testing told the AP on condition of anonymity because the information was not authorized for public release.
Each model was to be 18 to 30 feet (5 to 9 meters) high, and contractors built at or near the maximum, which is roughly twice as high as many existing barriers. Ronald Vitiello, the agency's acting deputy commissioner, said after visiting the prototypes in October that he was struck most by their height.
The highly trained testers scaled 16 to 20 feet (5 to 6 meters) unassisted but needed help after that, said the official, who described the assaults on the wall prototypes to the AP. Testers also expressed safety concerns about getting down from 30 feet.
Only once did a tester manage to land a hook on top of the wall without help, the official said. Tubes atop some models repelled climbing devices but wouldn't work in more mountainous areas because the terrain is too jagged.
The findings appear to challenge what Janet Napolitano, now chancellor of the University of California, often said when she was President Barack Obama's homeland security secretary: "You show me a 50-foot wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder."
A Customs and Border Protection report on the tests identifies strengths and flaws of each design but does not pick an overall winner or rank them. The report recommends combining elements of each, depending on the terrain. The official likened it to a Lego design, pulling pieces from different prototypes.
The report favors steel at the ground level because agents can see what is happening on the other side through mesh, and damage can more easily be fixed than concrete, the official said. With concrete, large slabs have to be replaced for even small breaches, which is time-consuming and expensive. Topping the steel with smooth concrete surfaces helps prevent climbing.
Brandon Judd, who heads the union representing border agents, said the recommended height and steel-concrete design make sense. He said people have been able to scale the smaller border walls, which were not put to same degree of testing before construction.
"Not many people are going to attempt to go over 30 feet," said Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council. "I just don't see it happening."
Today the AP is running a propaganda 3 for 1 special. How can the Associated Press spin Obama's illegal war in Syria to smear Trump while tying it into the heavily politicized Hollywood award show called the Oscars? Headline, read all about it ...
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. immigration authorities are barring entry to a 21-year-old Syrian cinematographer who worked on a harrowing film about his nation's civil war, "The White Helmets," that has been nominated for an Academy Award.
According to internal Trump administration correspondence seen by The Associated Press, the Department of Homeland Security has decided at the last minute to block Khaled Khateeb from traveling to Los Angeles for the Oscars.
Khateeb was scheduled to arrive Saturday in Los Angeles on a Turkish Airlines flight departing from Istanbul. But his plans have been upended after U.S. officials reported finding "derogatory information" regarding Khateeb.
Derogatory information is a broad category that can include anything from terror connections to passport irregularities. Asked for comment, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Gillian Christensen, said, "A valid travel document is required for travel to the United States."
"The White Helmets," a 40-minute Netflix documentary, has been nominated for Best Documentary Short. If the film wins the Oscar, the award would go to director Orlando von Einsiedel and producer Joanna Natasegara. Khateeb is one of three people credited for cinematography; Franklin Dow is the film's director of photography.
Oscars: Street artist Sabo's work meets Redbox
The film focuses on the rescue workers who risk their lives to save Syrians affected by civil war. Many of the group's members have been killed by Syrian President Bashar Assad's air forces. The group also was nominated for last year's Nobel Peace Prize.
"The White Helmets" includes emblematic scenes of the deadly 6-year-old conflict: people digging through destroyed homes looking for survivors, at constant risk of "double tap" attacks that target first responders after they've arrived at the scene of a strike.
Khateeb had been issued a visa to attend the ceremony with Hollywood's biggest stars. But Turkish authorities detained him this week, according to the internal U.S. government correspondence, and he suddenly needed a passport waiver from the United States to enter the country.
The correspondence indicated he would not receive such a waiver. There was no explanation in the correspondence for why Turkey detained Khateeb.
Surely the average uninformed American would think that preventing the oscar nominee to travel to the United States is unfair but there is more to the story, Much more. The White Helmets is a propaganda piece by every measure. Who and what are the 'White Helmets"? What was really going in Obama's illegal war in Syria? The Obama administration aided and funded Al Qaeda in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and then moved on to Syria supplying and aiding rebels in Syria to overthrow Assad. Rebels that included ISIS, Al Qaeda and their affiliates. Why do you think Benghazi was covered up? Because of the RAT LINE of arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey among other things including elections.
Politico
Shielding Obama and his assumed successor Hillary Clinton from any criticism and scandal was eagerly performed by the legacy media in the United States and the coverage of the illegal Syrian war in general has been lacking in most other countries around the world. In fact, coverage in Syria by CNN was exposed as fraudulent years ago with Syria Danny and now we have the 'White Helmets' What does a real independent journalist have to say about Syria, the press and the 'White Helmets' ? Watch:
Yes, Hollywood is in the propaganda business and always has been. Unfortunately, the legacy news media in the United States has totally abandoned its role as the fourth estate and the lines have been totally erased between news and entertainment, fact and fiction and speaking truth to power. The Church committee revealed decades ago that the Deep State controls the media through secret programs like Operation Mockingbird . While newer secret programs remain unnamed, the results of their efforts are obvious to anyone that critically reads the headlines and examines the FAKE NEWS. For everyone else the Oscar goes to ....
This was going to be a speech on Hillary Clinton and how bad a President, especially in these times of Radical Islamic Terrorism, she would be.
Even her former Secret Service Agent, who has seen her under pressure and in times of stress, has stated that she lacks the temperament and integrity to be president.
There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues at a later time, and I will deliver that speech soon.
Video
But today there is only one thing to discuss: the growing threat of terrorism inside of our borders.
The attack on the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was the worst terrorist strike on our soil since September 11th, and the worst mass shooting in our country’s history.
So many people dead, so many people gravely injured, so much carnage, such a disgrace.
The horror is beyond description.
The families of these wonderful people are totally devastated. Likewise, our whole nation, and indeed the whole world, is devastated.
We express our deepest sympathies to the victims, the wounded, and their families.
We mourn, as one people, for our nation’s loss – and pledge our support to any and all who need it.
I would like to ask now that we all observe a moment of silence for the victims of the attack.
Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT Community.
This is a very dark moment in America’s history.
A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation.
It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.
It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.
It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.
We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people – with force, purpose and determination.
But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and think and act clearly.
If we don't get tough, and we don't get smart – and fast – we're not going to have a country anymore -- there will be nothing left.
The killer, whose name I will not use, or ever say, was born to Afghan parents who immigrated to the United States. His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don’t share its radical views. The father even said he was running for President of that country.
The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here.
That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about.
We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.
We have an incompetent administration, and if I am not elected President, that will not change over the next four years -- but it must change, and it must change now.
With fifty people dead, and dozens more wounded, we cannot afford to talk around the issue anymore -- we have to address it head on.
I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger but now, many are saying I was right to do so -- and although the pause is temporary, we must find out what is going on. The ban will be lifted when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen those people coming into our country.
The immigration laws of the United States give the President the power to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons that the President deems detrimental to the interests or security of the United States, as he deems appropriate.
I will use this power to protect the American people. When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.
After a full, impartial and long overdue security assessment, we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America.
We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer.
Many of the principles of Radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions.
Radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.
I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by Radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.
It’s not just a national security issue. It is a quality of life issue.
If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans – women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people – then we need to tell the truth about Radical Islam.
We need to tell the truth, also, about how Radical Islam is coming to our shores.
We are importing Radical Islamic Terrorism into the West through a failed immigration system -- and through an intelligence community held back by our president.
Even our own FBI Director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the backgrounds of the people we are letting into America.
All of the September 11th hijackers were issued visas.
Large numbers of Somali refugees in Minnesota have tried to join ISIS.
The Boston Bombers came here through political asylum.
The male shooter in San Bernardino – again, whose name I won't mention -- was the child of immigrants from Pakistan, and he brought his wife – the other terrorist - from Saudi Arabia, through another one of our easily exploited visa programs.
Immigration from Afghanistan into the United States has increased nearly five-fold in just one year. According to Pew Research, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.
We admit many more from other countries in the region who share these same oppressive views.
If we want to remain a free and open society, then we have to control our borders.
Yet, Hillary Clinton – for months and despite so many attacks – repeatedly refused to even say the words “radical Islam,” until I challenged her yesterday to say the words or leave the race.
However, Hillary Clinton – who has been forced to say the words today after policies she supports have caused us so much damage – still has no clue what Radical Islam is, and won’t speak honestly about what it is.
She is in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the world.
In fact, just a few weeks before the San Bernardino slaughter, Hillary Clinton explained her refusal to say the words Radical Islam. Here is what she said: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
Hillary Clinton says the solution is to ban guns. They tried that in France, which has among the toughest gun laws in the world, and 130 were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in cold blood. Her plan is to disarm law-abiding Americans, abolishing the 2nd amendment, and leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns. She wants to take away Americans’ guns, then admit the very people who want to slaughter us.
I will be meeting with the NRA, which has given me their earliest endorsement in a Presidential race, to discuss how to ensure Americans have the means to protect themselves in this age of terror.
The bottom line is that Hillary supports the policies that bring the threat of Radical Islam into America, and allow it to grow overseas.
In fact, Hillary Clinton’s catastrophic immigration plan will bring vastly more Radical Islamic immigration into this country, threatening not only our security but our way of life.
When it comes to Radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss – it's deadly.
The Obama Administration, with the support of Hillary Clinton and others, has also damaged our security by restraining our intelligence-gathering and failing to support law enforcement. They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and above all else.
I refuse to be politically correct.
I will do the right thing--I want to straighten things out and to Make America Great Again.
The days of deadly ignorance will end, and they will end soon.
As President I will give our intelligence community, law enforcement and military the tools they need to prevent terrorist attacks.
We need an intelligence-gathering system second to none. That includes better cooperation between state, local and federal officials – and with our allies.
I will have an Attorney General, a Director of National Intelligence, and a Secretary of Defense who will know how to fight the war on Radical Islamic Terrorism – and who will have the support they require to get the job done.
We also must ensure the American people are provided the information they need to understand the threat.
The Senate Subcommittee on Immigration has already identified hundreds of immigrants charged with terrorist activities inside the United States since September 11th.
Nearly a year ago, the Senate Subcommittee asked President Obama's Departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security to provide the immigration history of all terrorists inside the United States.
These Departments refused to comply.
President Obama must release the full and complete immigration histories of all individuals implicated in terrorist activity of any kind since 9/11.
The public has a right to know how these people got here.
We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with, or support, radical groups and beliefs.
We have to control the amount of future immigration into this country to prevent large pockets of radicalization from forming inside America.
Even a single individual can be devastating, just look at what happened in Orlando. Can you imagine large groups?
Truly, our President doesn't know what he is doing. He has failed us, and failed us badly, and under his leadership, this situation will not get any better -- it will only get worse.
Each year, the United States permanently admits more than 100,000 immigrants from the Middle East, and many more from Muslim countries outside the Middle East. Our government has been admitting ever-growing numbers, year after year, without any effective plan for our security.
In fact, Clinton's State Department was in charge of the admissions process for people applying to enter from overseas.
Having learned nothing from these attacks, she now plans to massively increase admissions without a screening plan, including a 500% increase in Syrian refugees.
This could be a better, bigger version of the legendary Trojan Horse.
We can't let this happen.
Altogether, under the Clinton plan, you'd be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of their children.
The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to screen who we are bringing in.
The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans.
The burden is also on Hillary Clinton to tell us how she will pay for it. Her plan will cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars long-term.
Wouldn't this money be better spent on rebuilding America for our current population, including the many poor people already living here?
We have to stop the tremendous flow of Syrian refugees into the United States – we don't know who they are, they have no documentation, and we don't know what they're planning.
What I want is common sense. I want a mainstream immigration policy that promotes American values.
That is the choice I put before the American people: a mainstream immigration policy designed to benefit America, or Hillary Clinton's radical immigration policy designed to benefit politically-correct special interests.
We've got to get smart, and tough, and vigilant, and we've got to do it now, because later is too late.
The media talks about “homegrown,” terrorism, but Islamic radicalism, and the networks that nurture it, are imports from overseas.
Yes, there are many radicalized people already inside our country as a result of the poor policies of the past. But the whole point is that it will be much, much easier to deal with our current problem if we don’t keep on bringing in people who add to the problem.
For instance, the controversial Mosque attended by the Boston Bombers had as its founder an immigrant from overseas charged in an assassination plot.
This shooter in Orlando was the child of an immigrant father who supported one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. Why would we admit people who support violent hatred?
Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she continues to support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country who suppress women, gays and anyone who doesn’t share their views.
She can’t have it both ways. She can’t claim to be supportive of these communities while trying to increase the number of people coming in who want to oppress them.
How does this kind of immigration make our life better? How does this kind of immigration make our country better?
Why does Hillary Clinton want to bring people here—in vast numbers—who reject our values?
Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words? Clinton wants to allow Radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays.
I don’t want them in our country.
Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t support our communities – all of our communities.
America has already admitted four times more immigrants than any country on earth, and we continue to admit millions more with no real checks or scrutiny.
Not surprisingly, wages for our workers haven’t budged in many years.
So whether it’s matter of national security, or financial security, we can’t afford to keep on going like this. We owe $19 trillion in debt, and no longer have options.
All our communities, from all backgrounds, are ready for some relief. This is not an act of offense against anyone; it is an act of defense.
I want us all to work together, including in partnership with our Muslim communities. But Muslim communities must cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad – and they do know where they are.
I want to fix our schools, roads, bridges and job market. I want every American to succeed. Hillary Clinton wants to empty out the Treasury to bring people into the country that include individuals who preach hate against our own citizens.
I want to protect our citizens – all of our citizens.
The terrorist attack on the Pulse Night Club demands a full and complete investigation into every aspect of the assault.
In San Bernardino, as an example, people knew what was going on, but they used the excuse of racial profiling for not reporting it.
We need to know what the killer discussed with his relatives, parents, friends and associates.
We need to know if he was affiliated with any radical Mosques or radical activists and what, if any, is their immigration status.
We need to know if he travelled anywhere, and who he travelled with.
We need to make sure every single last person involved in this plan – including anyone who knew something but didn't tell us – is brought to justice.
If it can be proven that somebody had information about any attack, and did not give this information to authorities, they must serve prison time .
America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.
It also means we must change our foreign policy.
The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow.
These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.
That is why our new goal must be to defeat Islamic terrorism, not nation-building.
For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.
I've said NATO needs to change its focus to stopping terrorism. Since I've raised that criticism, NATO has since announced a new initiative focused on just that.
America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism, just like we did against communism in the Cold War.
We've tried it President Obama's way. He gave the world his apology tour, we got ISIS, and many other problems, in return.
I'd like to conclude my remarks today by again expressing our solidarity with the people of Orlando who have come under attack.
When I am President, I pledge to protect and defend all Americans who live inside of our borders. Wherever they come from, wherever they were born, all Americans living here and following our laws will be protected.
America will be a tolerant and open society.
America will also be a safe society.
We will protect our borders at home.
We will defeat ISIS overseas.
We will ensure every parent can raise their children in peace and safety.
The term 'anchor babies' has been around for quite a while and is used in reference to birthright citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment to the Constitution. What was the intent of the 14th amendment and how does it apply to children born in the United States to the parents of ILLEGAL immigrants?
There are some great articles and videos on the web that explain the intent of the 14th amendment, I found this article excerpt at NRO to be a great start.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”
Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
In fact, the 14th Amendment won;'t have to be repealed to clarify the rules of naturalization muddied by Justice Brennan a few decades ago. Congress already has the powers under Article 1 Section 8 which clearly states:
The Constitution and legal scholars make it clear that Congress has the power to clarify the laws on naturalization: An excerpt from CNS News of Mark Levin discussing the topic:
“And yet nobody did a better job at explaining this than Professor Edward Erler, who I’ve talked about over the years. And he’s a professor at California State University. He is also at The Claremont Institute, a senior fellow there. But more than that, he happens to be right. And he testified before a subcommittee of Congress many years ago, almost 20 years ago. And he set forth the case.
“Now, he’s not the only one: Professor Thomas West has; Lino Graglia has, professor at University of Texas School of Law School. But even more than them, the framers of the Constitution set forth the basic law. And then we have, after the Civil War, three amendments to the Constitution – the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth – called the Civil War Amendments. And we know pretty much what occurred.
“Professor Erler was testifying. He said, ‘It’s my considered opinion, Congress has the authority, under Section Five of the Fourth Amendment, to define the jurisdiction of the United States [of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course]. Indeed, it is my contention that Congress has exercised that power on many occasions, most recently in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and I would say they also exercised it with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.”
The left leaning media and candidates for political office that don't have a legal background or an understanding of the Constitution help muddy the waters on the intent of the 14th Amendment.
Aside from the fact that anchor babies are a drain on the resources of this country and are an affront to our sovereignty, laws and Constitution, it is obvious that the anchor baby industry must end now.
Mark Levin discusses the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship with Professor Erler
Conveniently hidden under the headline at TheHill.com is the fact that 347,000 convicted illegal immigrant criminals roam our streets, even though the Obama administration says it deports criminals. Somehow they are are deported while hundreds of leftist run cities passed sanctuary city ordinances that somehow supersede Federal law to prevent such deportations.
More than 1,400 immigrants on the path to deportation who have been released by the federal government have gone on to be convicted of new crimes ranging from sexual assault to burglary, according to federal data.
Additionally, there are more than 347,000 convicted criminal immigrants in the country illegally who have been released onto the streets. About half of those are currently in removal proceedings, and the rest have received orders to be removed from the country but are still roaming free.
The new data released by the House Judiciary Committee, which received it from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is sure to rile conservative critics of the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement policy.
The Democrats Promise, but NEVER secure the border
The news comes on the heels of a woman’s killing in a popular San Francisco waterfront that authorities say was committed by an undocumented immigrant who had been convicted of a felony and had been deported from the country five times.
“Despite DHS’s [the Department of Homeland Security] pledge to prioritize the removal of serious criminal aliens, in the last year the number of administrative arrests of criminal aliens has fallen by a third and the department continues to release thousands of such aliens onto our streets,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said during a hearing with department Secretary Jeh Johnson on Tuesday.
“This effectively releases criminal aliens onto the streets, with all too tragic results,” he added.
In the wake of the San Francisco killing, conservatives have jumped on the chance to blast“sanctuary cities” that ignore federal immigration orders, and accuse the administration of letting them get away with it.
“The clear answer to this problem is for DHS to mandate compliance with detainers and for this administration to defend the mandatory nature of detainers in federal court,” Goodlatte railed on Tuesday.
"The last time I looked we had a supremacy clause [in the Constitution], so federal law trumps state law, and God knows it trumps the law in San Francisco," echoed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).
Johnson refuted the criticism.
While he encouraged cities to abide by federal orders, he said that they should not be forced to do so.
“I do not think we should mandate the conduct of state and local law enforcement though legislation,” Johnson said.
Instead, “the most effective way” to get jurisdictions to abide by its orders “is through a cooperative effort with a program that removes the legal and political controversy," he said.
This administration and the Democrats have no desire to secure the border. In fact, their open embrace of lawlessness starts at the top with Barack Obama. He admitted that his executive action on immigration would be illegal yet he did it anyway.
Then again, the Democrats have always lied about 'immigration reform'
The Clintonistas have to explain away Hillary's previous stances on issues or just blatantly lie and say she has always been a 'progressive' and has never changed a position. Either approach will work on the Kool Aid drinking base of the Democratic Party that is blinded by identity politics and party propaganda. The Democrats are called zero information voters for good reason. Emotions can't be wrong or change based on facts or real information. Cognitive dissonance is required to be a supporter of anything Hillary Clinton or leftist in genera. Hillary Clinton is a progressive populist of convenience and her supporters really couldn't care less. Even the fact that they cannot name a single accomplishment of hers won't stop them from blindly supporting her.
Is Hillary Clinton’s embrace of populist and/or progressive rhetoric and policy positions consistent with her long-held convictions? Or is she only doing it belatedly, to shore up her support on the left, and to keep pace with the passions unleashed among Democrats by the rise of Elizabeth Warren and other factors?
The question gained some steam last week when Clinton shifted her stances on two key issues. She came out for a Constitutional right to gay marriage, when previously she’d said it should be left to the states, and embraced drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants, a position she’d previously opposed.
The reporter then points out the obvious fact. Almost all the Democrats have morphed their positions on key issues to pander to the coalition of the left.
The real story here, I think, is what this all says about the changing nature of the Democratic Party.
It’s true that Clinton has plainly evolved her positions on gay marriage and immigration. But large swaths of the Democratic Party have evolved on these issues, too. There has been a stampede of high level Democrats coming out in support of gay marriage in recent years, in a scramble to keep pace with cultural changes that have caught everyone off guard. On immigration, the party is more unified in support of reform than it has ever been, partly a reflection of its increasingly reliance on Latinos. All of this movement is an outgrowth of a broader Democratic Party shift towards the cultural priorities of the coalition that powered Obama victories in the last two national elections — nonwhites, millennials, socially liberal college-educated whites — and away from a reliance on culturally conservative blue collar whites.
The open-border-welfare-state Democrat's latest move on immigration is outrageous to say the least. Rule by fiat and Obama's self-admitted illegal use of executive action is how the Democrats prefer to govern and 'hispander' to a growing voting block.
House Democrats are amplifying their calls for the Obama administration to ease its detention policies for illegal immigrant families at the southern border.
The lawmakers, newly returned from a visit to a pair of detention facilities in Texas, said the "jail-like" conditions pose psychological and other health risks for the thousands of women and children being held for processing, many of whom arrived during last summer's migrant surge.
They're pushing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to close the facilities and release the families into less restrictive settings while their cases proceed.
Judicial Watch digs deeper into the latest move by the Dems on Immigration - (PIC)
"Let me just make clear: Our goal is to shut the facilities down," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.). "These kids, they shouldn't be in there. ... There is damage being caused to these kids that they're going to have to live with for the rest of their lives."
Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the Democratic whip, said he found the conditions "troubling" for the sheer number of young kids being held. He suggested the facilities be transformed into temporary holding stations where families remain for only "a few days" before being released while their asylum claims are heard.
"There's a difference between using beds while [the courts] are making a determination ... and treating them as a locked facility, where they are now, treated as criminals," Hoyer said. "We are urging ... that these facilities, for the purpose they're being used, be closed."
The two lawmakers were part of an eight-member group of Democrats who traveled this week to the Karnes County Residential Center, a 532-capacity facility in Karnes City, Texas, and the South Texas Family Residential Center, a 2,400-capacity facility in Dilley.
Of interesting note is that Johnson failed to mention the driving force behind his agency’s new policy. His name is Luis Zayas and he is the dean of Social Work at the University of Texas, Austin. In late May a group of pro-illegal alien members of congress, led by amnesty champion Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, wrote Johnson a letter demanding an end to the use of family detention for illegal immigrants. “It is undeniable that detention in a secure facility is detrimental to mothers and children and is not reflective of our values as a nation,” the letter states. “Children require special protections and should not be placed in jail-like settings.”
To back the claim, the lawmakers cite an affidavit written by Zayas, who asserts that children of undocumented or illegal immigrants are often the unintended victims of deportation policies. The professor has examined the effects of deportation on the psychosocial functioning of U.S.-born children of illegal alien Mexicans, according to his university biography, and often testifies in immigration courts on behalf of children and their families. “Presently, Zayas is focusing on the plight of citizen-children whose parents are being deported,” the public university biography states.
This background information is important because Zayas is the expert cited in the persuading letter Congress fired off to Johnson. Zayas determined that the detained illegal immigrant children are “facing some of the most adverse childhood conditions of any children I have ever interviewed or evaluated.” The professor further concluded that “detention has had serious and long-lasting impacts on the psychological health and well-being” of families at one center and that these impacts were evident in families who were detained for as little as two weeks. Days later the agency created after 9/11 to protect the nation from another terrorist attack, actually caved into this absurd assessment.
As of this week, there were 461 people in the Karnes center and 2,043 in the South Texas facility, according to a DHS spokesperson. A third center, in Berks County, Pa., currently houses an additional 89 people.
The centers have been under a spotlight since last year, when tens-of-thousands of families and unaccompanied children crossed the southern border –– most of them into Texas's Rio Grande Valley –– marking a huge increase over past years. The flood quickly swamped the border authorities who scrambled for ways to detain, process and, in many cases, deport the kids back to their homes.
The crisis sparked a decidedly partisan fight on Capitol Hill over both the cause of, and the appropriate response to, the migrant surge.
Johnson on Wednesday said DHS, after evaluating the family detention system, recognizes the need to make "substantial changes" to better the conditions for the detained women and children.
With guidance from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Sarah Saldaña, he announced a series of reforms the agency will undertake, including allowing the release of families "who are successful in stating a case of credible or reasonable fear of persecution in their home countries" and an effort to lower bond requirements to "reasonable and realistic" levels.
"In short, once a family has established eligibility for asylum or other relief under our laws, long-term detention is an inefficient use of our resources and should be discontinued," Johnson said in a statement.
The Democrats have ALWAYS lied about immigration:
Barack Obama's self-admitted illegal executive action on immigration is celebrated by the leftist totalitarian freaks.
Stringing along the illegal immigrant 'hispanics' who DEMAND citizenship is Obama's specialty.
What is the end game of the Democrats and their open-border welfare state besides maintaining power?
Barack Obama, the pathological liar and panderer in chief, makes another speech promising to keep fighting for 'undocumented' immigrants with election 2016 just around the corner. His empty rhetoric mostly blames the GOP and trumpets his actions. His words don't hold up to scrutiny, however.
President Obama vowed Saturday to keep fighting for undocumented immigrants despite actions by Republicans and some judges to derail his executive orders.
“I’m going to keep doing everything I can to make our immigration system more just and more fair,” Obama said in his weekly address Saturday, marking Immigrant Heritage Month.
Obama said he took action last November to provide more resources for border security and to modernize the legal immigration system to bring illegal immigrants “out of the shadows.”
“Some folks are still fighting against these actions,” he said. “I’m going to keep fighting for them. Because the law is on our side. It’s the right thing to do. And it will make America stronger.”
Obama ridiculed House Republican leaders for refusing to allow a vote on a Senate-passed immigration bill from 2013.
“For nearly two years, Republican leaders in the House have refused to even allow a vote on it,” he said.
- Obama has NEVER done everything he can when it comes to immigration. IN FACT, he promised to pass immigration his FIRST YEAR in office, when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate too....
Barack Obama's executive action on immigration is ILLEGAL, by his own admission.
After stringing along the 'Hispanic' voters through a couple of election cycles and after losing the House of Representatives to the GOP, the Democrat controlled Senate finally passes an immigration bill that was written behind closed doors and didn't allow full Senate input. The House of Representatives was under no obligation to work on this flawed legislation and work with a Democrat Senate that wouldn't allow GOP amendments to legislation for years.
What are the goals of the Democratic party when it comes to immigration, an open border policy and a welfare state? The answer is clearly spelled out by former Democrat Governor Richard Lamm.....
The partisan fight over the southern border crisis got feistier Friday night when House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and GOP Rep. Tom Marino (Pa.) got into a heated spat on the chamber floor.
Pelosi had just finished speaking, and Marino was next at the podium across the aisle, when the two exchanged words about who's at fault for the recent influx of child migrants at the southern border.Marino suggested Pelosi should bear some of the blame because the Democrats never enacted immigration reform during her tenure as Speaker. Breaking floor protocol, he addressed Pelosi directly and urged her to do her research on the subject.
“I did the research on it," he said. "You might want to try it. You might want to try it, Madam Leader."
The remarks didn't sit well with Pelosi, who waited until Marino was finished speaking and then crossed the aisle to confront him directly.
Radio host Mark Levin uncovered a classic audio clip of Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm, a Democrat. Versions of this speech in print have made the rounds on the internet and a copy of it follows the audio/video clip.
I HAVE A PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA
RICHARD D. LAMM
I HAVE A SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. IF YOU BELIEVE, AS MANY DO,
THAT AMERICA IS TOO SMUG, TOO WHITE BREAD, TOO SELF-SATISFIED, TOO RICH,
LETS DESTROY AMERICA. IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO. HISTORY SHOWS
THAT NATIONS ARE MORE FRAGILE THAN THEIR CITIZENS THINK. NO NATION IN
HISTORY HAS SURVIVED THE RAVAGES OF TIME. ARNOLD TOYNBEE OBSERVED THAT
ALL GREAT CIVILIZATIONS RISE AND THEY ALL FALL, AND THAT "AN AUTOPSY OF
HISTORY WOULD SHOW THAT ALL GREAT NATIONS COMMIT SUICIDE." HERE IS MY
PLAN:
I. WE MUST FIRST MAKE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY.
HISTORY SHOWS, IN MY OPINION, THAT NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THE TENSION,
CONFLICT, AND ANTAGONISM OF TWO COMPETING LANGUAGES AND CULTURES. IT IS
A BLESSING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE BILINGUAL; IT IS A CURSE FOR A
SOCIETY TO BE BILINGUAL. ONE SCHOLAR, SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET, PUT IT
THIS WAY:
THE HISTORIES OF BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT
ASSIMILATE ARE HISTORIES OF TURMOIL, TENSION, AND TRAGEDY. CANADA,
BELGIUM, MALAYSIA, LEBANON-ALL FACE CRISES OF NATIONAL EXISTENCE IN
WHICH MINORITIES PRESS FOR AUTONOMY, IF NOT INDEPENDENCE. PAKISTAN AND
CYPRUS HAVE DIVIDED. NIGERIA SUPPRESSED AN ETHNIC REBELLION. FRANCE
FACES DIFFICULTIES WITH ITS BASQUES, BRETONS, AND CORSICANS.
II. I WOULD THEN INVENT "MULTICULTURALISM" AND ENCOURAGE IMMIGRANTS
TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CULTURE. I WOULD MAKE IT AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF THAT
ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL: THAT THERE ARE NO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT
ARE IMPORTANT. I WOULD DECLARE IT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE BLACK
AND HISPANIC DROPOUT RATE IS ONLY DUE TO PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION BY
THE MAJORITY. EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS.
III. WE CAN MAKE THE UNITED STATES A "HISPANIC QUEBEC" WITHOUT MUCH
EFFORT. THE KEY IS TO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY RATHER THAN UNITY. AS
BENJAMIN SCHWARZ SAID IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY RECENTLY:
...THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF OUR OWN MULTIETHNIC AND MULTICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED NOT BY TOLERANCE BUT BY HEGEMONY.
WITHOUT THE DOMINANCE THAT ONCE DICTATED ETHNOCENTRICALLY, AND WHAT IT
MEANT TO BE AN AMERICAN, WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM
TO HOLD US TOGETHER.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE.
I WOULD REPLACE THE MELTING POT METAPHOR WITH A SALAD BOWL METAPHOR.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS CULTURAL SUB-GROUPS
LIVING IN AMERICA REINFORCING THEIR DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN AMERICANS,
EMPHASIZING THEIR SIMILARITIES.
IV. HAVING DONE ALL THIS, I WOULD MAKE OUR FASTEST GROWING
DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP THE LEAST EDUCATED - I WOULD ADD A SECOND UNDERCLASS,
UNASSIMILATED, UNDEREDUCATED, AND ANTAGONISTIC TO OUR POPULATION. I
WOULD HAVE THIS SECOND UNDERCLASS HAVE A 50% DROP OUT RATE FROM SCHOOL.
V. I WOULD THEN GET THE BIG FOUNDATIONS AND BIG BUSINESS TO GIVE
THESE EFFORTS LOTS OF MONEY. I WOULD INVEST IN ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND I
WOULD ESTABLISH THE CULT OF VICTIMOLOGY. I WOULD GET ALL MINORITIES TO
THINK THEIR LACK OF SUCCESS WAS ALL THE FAULT OF THE MAJORITY - I WOULD
START A GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY BLAMING ALL MINORITY FAILURE ON THE MAJORITY
POPULATION.
VI. I WOULD ESTABLISH DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND PROMOTE DIVIDED
LOYALTIES. I WOULD "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY." "DIVERSITY" IS A WONDERFULLY
SEDUCTIVE WORD. IT STRESSES DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMONALITIES.
DIVERSE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE MOSTLY ENGAGED IN HATING EACH OTHER-THAT
IS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER. A DIVERSE," PEACEFUL, OR
STABLE SOCIETY IS AGAINST MOST HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. PEOPLE UNDERVALUE
THE UNITY IT TAKES TO KEEP A NATION TOGETHER, AND WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THIS MYOPIA. LOOK AT THE ANCIENT GREEKS. DORF'S WORLD HISTORY TELLS US:
THE GREEKS BELIEVED THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE SAME RACE; THEY POSSESSED A
COMMON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE; AND THEY WORSHIPED THE SAME GODS. ALL
GREECE TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN HONOR OF ZEUS AND ALL GREEKS
VENERATED THE SHRINE OF APOLLO AT DELPHI. A COMMON ENEMY PERSIA
THREATENED THEIR LIBERTY. YET, ALL OF THESE BONDS TOGETHER WERE NOT
STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME TWO FACTORS . . . (LOCAL PATRIOTISM AND
GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THAT NURTURED POLITICAL DIVISIONS . . .)
IF WE CAN PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE "PLURIBUS," INSTEAD OF THE "UNUM," WE CAN BALKANIZE AMERICA AS SURELY AS KOSOVO.
VII. THEN I WOULD PLACE ALL THESE SUBJECTS OFF LIMITS - MAKE IT
TABOO TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD FIND A WORD SIMILAR TO "HERETIC" IN THE 16TH CENTURY - THAT STOPPED DISCUSSION AND PARALYZED THINKING. WORDS LIKE "RACIST", "XENOPHOBE" THAT HALTS ARGUMENT AND CONVERSATION.
HAVING MADE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY, HAVING ESTABLISHED
MULTICULTURALISM, HAVING THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS FUND THE DOCTRINE OF
"VICTIMOLOGY", I WOULD NEXT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OUR
IMMIGRATION LAWS. I WOULD DEVELOP A MANTRA - "THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN GOOD FOR AMERICA, IT MUST ALWAYS BE GOOD." I WOULD MAKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IMMIGRANT SYMPATRIC AND IGNORE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT.
VIII. LASTLY, I WOULD CENSOR VICTOR HANSON DAVIS'S BOOK MEXIFORNIA— THIS BOOK IS DANGEROUS— IT EXPOSES MY PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. SO PLEASE, PLEASE — IF YOU FEEL THAT AMERICA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED — PLEASE, PLEASE — DON'T BUY THIS BOOK! THIS GUY IS ON TO MY PLAN.
"THE SMART WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE PASSIVE AND OBEDIENT IS TO STRICTLY LIMIT
THE SPECTRUM OF ACCEPTABLE OPINION, BUT ALLOW VERY LIVELY DEBATE WITHIN
THAT SPECTRUM." — NOAM CHOMSKY, AMERICAN LINGUIST AND US MEDIA AND FOREIGN POLICY CRITIC.
Both Governor Lamm and the writer of the e-mail misidentify the author of the book Mexifornia, whose correct name is Victor Davis Hanson. A copy from Snopes.com
The report favors steel at the ground level because agents can see what is happening on the other side through mesh, and damage can more easily be fixed than concrete, the official said. With concrete, large slabs have to be replaced for even small breaches, which is time-consuming and expensive. Topping the steel with smooth concrete surfaces helps prevent climbing.
