Those remarks weren’t commentary from the Democrats’ favorite immigration bogeyman, President Donald Trump. Those were the words of former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who worked for Barack scumbag/liar-nObama.

Johnson also slammed Democrats for politicizing “kids in cages.” He noted, “Chain-link barriers, partitions, fences, cages — whatever you want to call them — were not invented on January 2017.” The struggle for the Border Patrol, Johnson says, is timing and numbers. “During that 72-hour period” before illegals are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services, “when you have something that is a multiple — like four times of what you’re accustomed to in the existing infrastructure — you’ve got to find places quickly to put kids.” In other words, scumbag/liar-nObama’s DHS “put kids in cages,” too, because it’s the most humane way to deal with enforcing the law in the face of an invasion.

By the way, these children have become a smuggler’s dream, and a free pass across the border for others.

And yet we have Democrats like presidential hopeful scumbag-Cory Booker proposing the elimination of detention while insisting, “Remember, this is a crisis that Donald Trump has created through executive action.”

Wrong. Democrats have invited this invasion for cynical political reasons. And then they utterly denied a border crisis until they decided it was more advantageous to blame Trump.

Leftist judges are arguably doing even more harm. National Review reports, “U.S. District judge Marsha Pechman ruled Tuesday that the administration must allow asylum-seekers the opportunity to post bond and be released from detention while waiting for their claims to be adjudicated.”

The president’s new press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, got it exactly right: “The district court’s injunction is at war with the Rule of Law. The decision only incentivizes smugglers and traffickers, which will lead to the further overwhelming of our immigration system by illegal aliens. No single district judge has legitimate authority to impose his or her open-borders views on the country.”

Yet Pechman’s judicial activism is by no means an isolated incident. Since Trump took office, federal judges have issued an eye-popping 37 nationwide injunctions to block his policies. That’s 10 more than were issued in the entire 20th century.

So while Democrat politicians and judges create this crisis, it’s worth pondering a fundamental question: Why do so many people of color from so many countries governed by persons of color risk everything to come to America — a country that has been declared evil, racist, and run by “old white men”?  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64096?mailing_id=4401&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4401&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

I will not be in much of a celebratory mood this coming Independence Day.

Our borders have collapsed. Our educational system is a wreck. And our constitutionally protected freedoms of assembly, speech and the press are under siege in the streets and across the internet. The ability of patriots to warn, expose and combat the threats to our national sovereignty is eroding daily.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, my fellow Americans, but this is no time for a parade.

In Portland, my young journalist friend Andy Ngo was hospitalized over the weekend after a brutal assault at the hands of Antifa thugs who rule the streets and run the city. Ngo has been smeared as a “provocateur” and a “propagandist” for exposing the bloody violence and anarchy of far-left “resisters.” He has been doxxed and physically threatened by anti-Trump, open borders radicals menacing him online. On Saturday afternoon, armed only with his smartphone, hand-held GoPro, bodycam and reporter’s backpack, Ngo braved a mob of black-masked agitators purportedly marching against “hate.”

As they passed the county courthouse and sheriff’s office, the anarchists taunted Ngo by name and hurled cups with unknown substances at him. One violent attacker dressed like a ninja, donning black gloves with reinforced knuckles, punched Ngo in the eyes. Another black-cloaked punk kicked Ngo in the groin multiple times as others pelted him with liquids, sprays and eggs. During the melee, as police stood by, his electronic equipment was stolen. He sustained brain bleeding and wounds to his head, face and neck.

Ngo was not alone. Two Oregonians who had come to support conservative speakers at a downtown rally nearby were set upon by black-masked vigilantes. Adam Kelly was hit in the head with fists, nunchucks, a metal Hydro Flask and a crowbar. Two massive gashes on his skull required more than 25 staples. John Blum was also overrun by people in black masks, who aimed bear spray or mace at him when he, Kelly and two others tried to come to the aid of others being assaulted by Antifa. The elderly Blum had carried a baton to defend himself, but was blinded and incapacitated while being hit, punched and dragged across the street with blood pouring down his face.

Antifa’s apologists in the liberal press scoffed at the savagery, mocking Ngo as a “f—ing snowflake” and downplaying the gang ambushes harmless “milkshaking.” In total, medics treated eight people, including three police officers. “Three community members received treatment at area hospitals after they were assaulted with weapons. Two officers were pepper sprayed during the incident and were treated. Another officer was punched in the arm by a demonstrator and sustained (a) non-life-threatening injury. Another officer sustained a non-life-threatening head injury from a projectile,” the city blandly reported.

Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler, a notorious social justice grandstander, spent Monday railing not against the barbarians who’ve hijacked the public square in his town, but against Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, who called out Wheeler’s history of stand-down orders. Portland Police Association president Daryl Turner amplified the critique, pleading with the City to “remove the handcuffs from our officers and let them stop the violence through strong and swift enforcement action.” Those handcuffs have endangered Portland’s citizens in multiple ways. Wheeler has declared Portland a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, and himself a guardian against all foreign criminals evading deportation. In February, the city withdrew the police force from the Joint Terrorism Task Force’s partnership between the feds and local law enforcement — turning the Pacific Northwest metropolis into a safe space for jihad.

Will there be a federal investigation? Concerned citizens who can’t afford to wait have taken matters into their own hands. After just three days, more than 5,700 individuals have contributed a whopping $178,000 to a GoFundMe campaign I spearheaded to help with Andy Ngo’s security, medical and work costs. A separate fundraiser for Adam Kelly raised more than $11,000. On another front, internet sleuths are analyzing video to try and identify Antifa assailants — crowdsourcing the job Portland officials have failed to do.

But the social media battlegrounds, like the streets, are rigged against the law-abiding.

One Twitter user, LucetVeritas, who posted video of Portland violence this weekend, disappeared from the site on Monday. I was able to track her down. She told me that her tweet “had millions of impressions and almost 12,000 retweets. Within 24 hours, Twitter suspended my account offering no explanation. As an avid researcher, I have witnessed bias by employees of Twitter who were tied to Antifa accounts. Jack Dorsey himself has admitted his own conservative employees do not feel safe to express their opinions. Our First Amendment right of freedom of speech is in danger more now than ever before.”

Just minutes after finishing up my conversation with her, I learned that another researcher and investigator I’ve admired for years, Ann Corcoran, had her invaluable 12-year-old website, Refugee Resettlement Watch, terminated by WordPress this week. Poof. Gone.

With patriots being silenced all around me, it’s getting harder to feel patriotic. Who needs fireworks when our rights are going up in flames?  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64033?mailing_id=4395&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4395&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

I will not be in much of a celebratory mood this coming Independence Day.

Our borders have collapsed. Our educational system is a wreck. And our constitutionally protected freedoms of assembly, speech and the press are under siege in the streets and across the internet. The ability of patriots to warn, expose and combat the threats to our national sovereignty is eroding daily.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, my fellow Americans, but this is no time for a parade.

In Portland, my young journalist friend Andy Ngo was hospitalized over the weekend after a brutal assault at the hands of Antifa thugs who rule the streets and run the city. Ngo has been smeared as a “provocateur” and a “propagandist” for exposing the bloody violence and anarchy of far-left “resisters.” He has been doxxed and physically threatened by anti-Trump, open borders radicals menacing him online. On Saturday afternoon, armed only with his smartphone, hand-held GoPro, bodycam and reporter’s backpack, Ngo braved a mob of black-masked agitators purportedly marching against “hate.”

As they passed the county courthouse and sheriff’s office, the anarchists taunted Ngo by name and hurled cups with unknown substances at him. One violent attacker dressed like a ninja, donning black gloves with reinforced knuckles, punched Ngo in the eyes. Another black-cloaked punk kicked Ngo in the groin multiple times as others pelted him with liquids, sprays and eggs. During the melee, as police stood by, his electronic equipment was stolen. He sustained brain bleeding and wounds to his head, face and neck.

Ngo was not alone. Two Oregonians who had come to support conservative speakers at a downtown rally nearby were set upon by black-masked vigilantes. Adam Kelly was hit in the head with fists, nunchucks, a metal Hydro Flask and a crowbar. Two massive gashes on his skull required more than 25 staples. John Blum was also overrun by people in black masks, who aimed bear spray or mace at him when he, Kelly and two others tried to come to the aid of others being assaulted by Antifa. The elderly Blum had carried a baton to defend himself, but was blinded and incapacitated while being hit, punched and dragged across the street with blood pouring down his face.

Antifa’s apologists in the liberal press scoffed at the savagery, mocking Ngo as a “f—ing snowflake” and downplaying the gang ambushes harmless “milkshaking.” In total, medics treated eight people, including three police officers. “Three community members received treatment at area hospitals after they were assaulted with weapons. Two officers were pepper sprayed during the incident and were treated. Another officer was punched in the arm by a demonstrator and sustained (a) non-life-threatening injury. Another officer sustained a non-life-threatening head injury from a projectile,” the city blandly reported.

Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler, a notorious social justice grandstander, spent Monday railing not against the barbarians who’ve hijacked the public square in his town, but against Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, who called out Wheeler’s history of stand-down orders. Portland Police Association president Daryl Turner amplified the critique, pleading with the City to “remove the handcuffs from our officers and let them stop the violence through strong and swift enforcement action.” Those handcuffs have endangered Portland’s citizens in multiple ways. Wheeler has declared Portland a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, and himself a guardian against all foreign criminals evading deportation. In February, the city withdrew the police force from the Joint Terrorism Task Force’s partnership between the feds and local law enforcement — turning the Pacific Northwest metropolis into a safe space for jihad.

Will there be a federal investigation? Concerned citizens who can’t afford to wait have taken matters into their own hands. After just three days, more than 5,700 individuals have contributed a whopping $178,000 to a GoFundMe campaign I spearheaded to help with Andy Ngo’s security, medical and work costs. A separate fundraiser for Adam Kelly raised more than $11,000. On another front, internet sleuths are analyzing video to try and identify Antifa assailants — crowdsourcing the job Portland officials have failed to do.

But the social media battlegrounds, like the streets, are rigged against the law-abiding.

One Twitter user, LucetVeritas, who posted video of Portland violence this weekend, disappeared from the site on Monday. I was able to track her down. She told me that her tweet “had millions of impressions and almost 12,000 retweets. Within 24 hours, Twitter suspended my account offering no explanation. As an avid researcher, I have witnessed bias by employees of Twitter who were tied to Antifa accounts. Jack Dorsey himself has admitted his own conservative employees do not feel safe to express their opinions. Our First Amendment right of freedom of speech is in danger more now than ever before.”

Just minutes after finishing up my conversation with her, I learned that another researcher and investigator I’ve admired for years, Ann Corcoran, had her invaluable 12-year-old website, Refugee Resettlement Watch, terminated by WordPress this week. Poof. Gone.

With patriots being silenced all around me, it’s getting harder to feel patriotic. Who needs fireworks when our rights are going up in flames?  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64033?mailing_id=4395&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4395&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Original story below:

The fight to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census is over. On Tuesday, a Justice Department lawyer explained, “The decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and … the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process.” This change represents a quick about-face for President Donald Trump, who had initially expressed a commitment to delay the census in order to include a citizenship question following the Supreme Court’s erroneous decision last week to reject the administration’s rationale for including the question.

Chief Justice John Roberts once again showed his judicial weakness when he chose to side with his leftist colleagues in a 5-4 decision. His rationale of rejecting not the question itself but the Trump administration’s motivation for including it demonstrated that Roberts is a justice who cannot be trusted to rule on the constitutional merits of a law in question. Feelings rather than objective-based reasoning seem to have great sway with Roberts.

The decision to go ahead with the printing of census materials without a citizenship question is a recognition by Trump that there is no way to meet Roberts’s arbitrary standard for justifying the motive for including the citizenship question, regardless of the time constraints. To comply with the constitutional mandate to administrate the census, Trump had little choice but to concede.

This is clearly a win for Democrats, who aim to increase their power via swelling their districts with swaths of noncitizens — people who cannot vote and yet do contribute to the overall population numbers in their districts, which in turn affects the number of representatives in blue areas. Meanwhile, the U.S. government will continue having difficulty accurately recording the number of noncitizens currently living in the country.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64056?mailing_id=4395&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4395&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

The Supreme Court’s fractured and fragmented decision on whether the Commerce Department can reinstate a citizenship question as part of the 2020 census was a partial victory and a partial loss for the Trump administration. Now a giant question mark hangs over whether census form will include a question asking people if they are U.S. citizens.

Following the high court’s 5-4 decision Thursday to temporarily block the Commerce Department from including the citizenship question on the census form, President Trump said he would try to delay the census until the court can issue a final ruling in the complex case.

The president tweeted: “Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census, in this case for 2020. I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long.”

Common sense tells us that the citizenship question should be included as one of many questions in the census to obtain accurate data on our population. The purpose of the census, after all, is to collect such demographic information.

But opponents of Trump administration plans to ask about citizenship argue that the question would discourage immigrants — particularly illegal immigrants — from responding to the census and being counted. This would lead to an undercount of the U.S. population that could result in less federal funds and fewer congressional seats going to districts with large immigrant populations, the opponents contend.

Yet as the Supreme Court noted, all but one census taken from 1820 to 2000 included a question about citizenship or place of birth for at least some portion of the population. And since 2000, a citizenship question has been on the American Community Survey — a mini-census sent out every year to a large sample of American households.

The majority Supreme Court decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is not a final ruling. Rather, it sends the case back to a lower court to further investigate the basis for the Trump administration’s desire to include the citizenship question.

The deadline for finalizing the 2020 census form is fast approaching, however. By kicking the case back to a lower court for further consideration, the high court essentially punted the administration back deep into its own territory, with little time left on the clock — unless Trump can succeed in delaying the census.

The question now is whether Justice Department lawyers can produce evidence needed to convince the lower court to approve the citizenship question before time runs out, or whether the census can be postponed to give the administration more time.

Significantly, the Trump administration won on many of the substantive issues raised by the challengers in this case.

The challengers claimed, for example, that it would be unconstitutional to ask a citizenship question on the census. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause — which directs Congress to conduct a census every 10 years — allows Congress to ask a citizenship question. That provision says the census will be conducted as Congress “shall by Law direct.”

In addition, the Trump administration won on the question of whether the Commerce Department secretary has the authority to put a citizenship question on the census. The challengers claimed that Secretary Wilbur Ross didn’t have that power.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress delegated its authority to the Commerce secretary in a law that gives him broad authority to decide the content and form of the census. This authority includes deciding what questions are asked.

However, the high court ruled that broad authority is not unlimited. Justices said the Commerce secretary’s decision is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a federal law that governs the issuance of new rules and regulations by federal agencies.

On another issue — the claim that adding a citizenship question would drive down the response rate among noncitizen households — the Supreme Court upheld Secretary Ross’s decision to improve the accuracy of the citizenship data collected by the Census Bureau by adding the citizenship question. The court said Ross’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Ross was faced with deciding between the value of obtaining more complete citizenship data from across the country with a new census form, or against the uncertain and undetermined risk that reinstating the citizenship question would result in a materially lower response rate, the high court found.

The Commerce secretary’s decision that adding a citizenship question was the better choice was reasonable and reasonably explained, the court found.

However, the case fell apart for the Trump administration because it had said the main reason for reinstating the citizenship question was to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

In a partial dissent joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court should have stopped its analysis when it determined the citizenship question is both constitutional and within the legal authority of the Commerce secretary.

But Chief Justice Roberts, joined by the court’s four liberal justices, found that the Voting Rights Act enforcement reason seemed “contrived,” because Ross was already considering adding the citizenship question a week into his tenure as secretary. This was before the Justice Department sent the Commerce Department a letter saying more accurate citizenship data was needed for enforcement purposes

“The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Thomas dismissed this argument, saying that doubting Secretary Ross’ motives ignored “the presumption of regularity” the courts owe to federal agencies. The administration gave a rational explanation for adding the citizenship question and that should have been the end of the Supreme Court’s review, Thomas said.

Because of this issue, the high court temporarily blocked adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. But it approved the decision of the lower court that sent the issue back to the Commerce Department, giving the department the opportunity to present more evidence that would justify its decision to ask about citizenship.

Whether that can be done in time to meet the practical deadlines under which the Commerce Department is operating is the big question. It’s also unknown whether the president can succeed in delaying the census.

To succeed, the Commerce Department will have to provide substantive grounds for Ross’s decision, submit that to the lower court for review, get a decision from the judge, and then appeal that decision if it goes against the Trump administration.

In other words, Trump administration officials must throw the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass and hope they make it into the end zone.

The game isn’t over, so we’ll all have to wait and see what comes next.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64009?mailing_id=4389&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4389&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The likelihood I would ever be invited to serve on a network panel questioning the Democratic presidential candidates is equivalent to an invitation to take the next trip to the moon.

Still, as I tortured myself watching the two “debates,” which were not really debates, but mostly a show of memorized sound bites, I thought of unasked questions that ought to have been put to them all.

Question 1: Some of you have, or had, the power to change many of the things you now say are wrong with America. Why didn’t you?

Question 2 (for loose lips liar-Joe Biden): You and Barack scumbag/liar-nObama, for a time, had a Democratic majority in Congress. Why didn’t you reform immigration laws and address homelessness? Your administration deported a lot of people who were in the country illegally, so why criticize President Trump for wanting to follow your example? Do our laws mean nothing?

Question 3: During the second debate, all of you raised your hands when asked if you would provide free health care to immigrants who are here illegally. Aren’t you inviting even more to come to America with such a policy, and wouldn’t that add to our already staggering debt? Follow-up: President Trump said we should take care of Americans first. Why would you use American tax dollars to pay for people who break our laws?

Question 4: Is there anything President Trump has done that you could praise? Many of you talk as if unemployment hasn’t declined — especially for minorities — and wages haven’t risen. Unemployment is at, or near, record lows and wages are up.

Question 5: Some of you think raising taxes again is a good idea, but with a $22 trillion debt and with record amounts of revenue already coming into Washington, isn’t the real problem uncontrolled spending? Follow-up: Are there any government programs you would cut or eliminate?

Question 6: Many of you have a lot of complaints about the U.S. Is there anything positive you could say?

Question 7: Many of you have criticized President Trump for confronting Iran and withdrawing from the nuclear deal. Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism in the world and its leaders say they have a religious mandate to wipe out Israel and impose Islamic law on everyone. How would you negotiate with their leaders and what is your plan for fighting terrorism?

Question 8: Some of you say Russia is the greatest existential threat and others name China. Russia has been supporting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and the crumbling dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. Russia has also sent a warship to Cuba. How would you oppose Russia’s adventurism and China’s expansionism? How would you deal with China spying on us?

Question 9 (for Sen. lowlife-Kamala Harris): You attacked loose lips liar-Joe Biden for working with segregationist senators during his time in the Senate. He (and Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through significant civil rights legislation in the ‘60s) said it was necessary in order to accomplish anything. If you were in the Senate at that time, would you have refused to work with those senators, possibly scuttling significant legislation that has led to improvements in the lives of many Americans, including African Americans?

Question 10: There have been 60 million abortions in America since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than five times as likely as white women to have an abortion. Does this trouble you? Follow-up: Some states allow babies to die if they survive an abortion and some call that infanticide. Are you opposed to that practice?

These questions and others might have provided more useful information to the public than the ones tossed at the candidates. As I say, though, it is unlikely I will ever have a chance to ask them and the network stars won’t either.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64001?mailing_id=4389&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4389&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body