On Tuesday, amid a crowd of protesters, Trump and his family visited the Tree of Life synagogue, where he spoke privately with Rabbi Myers and offered his condolences. Following Trump’s visit, Myers was again interviewed by CNN’s Camerota, who renewed her negative narrative against the president. But once again the good rabbi refused, saying that he was “pleasantly surprised” by Trump’s warmth.
               Myer further related, “I was privileged to have a private 15 or 20 minutes with the [Trump] family. The president was very warm, very consoling. He put his hand on my shoulder and the first question he asked me was, ‘Rabbi, tell me — how are you doing?’ And I must say throughout the time we spent together, I was pleasantly surprised by a warm and personal side to the president that I don’t think America has ever seen.”
               Actually, the rabbi’s personal experience with Trump has been affirmed by many others. As Mark Alexander noted in 2016, “[Trump] is an interesting case study. On a personal level, those we know who are closest to him say that he is very personable and fair, that he demonstrates integrity and humility, and that he treats people with dignity and respect.” In a conversation Alexander had with a longtime friend who managed Trump’s personal security team prior to his nomination, he was told that, despite all of Trump’s brazen, brash bravado in public — his “New Yorker” side — he was universally admired by those on his staff as generous, kind, and fair to those around him, and that his personal interactions with guests were warm and accommodating. Yes, that is the polar opposite of his brawling public persona, but it’s still vintage Trump.
               Even exiting Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who often butted heads with Trump, confirmed this week that when visiting with Trump at the White House or other venues, he was very personal and hospitable. It’s too bad more of that Trump doesn’t come through in his public comments and interactions.

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FkW1zUGGrU

~The Patriot Post  

             That’s right, those very same Gitmo terrorists are now part of the Taliban’s “peace” negation team. So after 17 years of fighting a seemingly never-ending war, the U.S. is left negotiating a “peace” deal with the very terrorists scumbag/liar-nObama released. And why are we negotiating “peace” with the Taliban — the terrorist overlords we went to Afghanistan to destroy? Because scumbag/liar-nObama was content to let the U.S. military languish there in a holding pattern rather than giving American Patriots in uniform the necessary means to win. The net effect is the same as his disastrous withdrawal from Iraq, which brought about the rise of the Islamic State. That’s right, the Taliban now controls nearly half of Afghanistan and thus has the necessary leverage for negotiations.
               scumbag/liar-nObama started out his term apologizing for American exceptionalism, he allowed for the growth of ISIS, which almost reversed all gains made in Iraq, and he went out appeasing one of America’s biggest enemies with his terrible Iran nuclear deal. These Afghanistan “peace” talks are a tragic bookend to the absolute futility of scumbag/liar-nObama’s foreign policy.

~The Patriot Post  

             In 2009 the woman, called “Mrs. S” by the court but identified as Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, conducted two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam.” During those seminars, Sabaditsch-Wolff included the scripturally accurate account of the 50-year-old prophet of Islam taking Aisha as his wife when she was six or seven, and consummating the marriage when Aisha was nine.
               During those lectures, NEWS magazine, a leftist Austrian publication, planted a reporter in the audience to secretly record them. Lawyers for the magazine subsequently provided transcripts to the Viennese public prosecutor’s office as evidence alleging Sabaditsch-Wolff had violated Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code that criminalizes “hate speech.” Initial charges against her were filed in September 2010, and her jury-less trial, adjudicated by Judge Bettina Neubauer, began that November.
               It quickly devolved into farce. Neubauer pointed out that only 30 minutes of the first seminar had been recorded, and that statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were actually offhand comments made during breaks. Moreover, far fewer than the 30 people required by Austrian law to define a statement as “public” heard them. Sabaditsch-Wolff asserted her comments were not made in a public forum because the seminars were provided to a select group of people who had pre-registered to attend them. The fact that Sabaditsch-Wolff had actually quoted the Koran and other Islamic texts proved “problematic” as well.
               A suspension of the original trial occurred on January 18, 2011, ostensibly so Neubauer could review the recordings more thoroughly. However when the trial resumed, Neubauer — not prosecutors — added the charge of “denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group” to the original indictment. The trial was again postponed by Sabaditsch-Wolff’s attorneys so they could address the additional charge. When it resumed on Feb. 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was exonerated of the original charge but, convicted of violating Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code, which prohibits “denigrating or mocking any person or thing that is the object of worship of a domestically existing church or religious society, or a doctrine, lawful practice, or lawful establishment of such a church or religious community.”
               In short, the judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff had accused Muhammed of being a pedophile. What she actually said was that “Mohammed had a thing for little girls.” Sabaditsch-Wolff’s initial appeal of her $547 fine and the costs of the proceedings, or the alternative sentence of 60 days in prison, was rejected by the Vienna Court of Appeal the following December.
               Sabaditsch-Wolff moved her appeal to the ECHR, using as her vehicle Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It states that everyone “has the right to freedom of expression.” Yet the same article notes that such freedom engenders “duties and responsibilities,” that may be “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.”
               Thus, the ECHR ruled that the domestic courts “comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”
               Columnist Andrew McCarthy cuts through the double-speak. “Europeans are free to say only what they are permitted to say by the unelected judges of the European courts,” he writes. “Truth is irrelevant.” Columnist Bruce Bawer goes even further. “The ECHR has totally capitulated to Islam,” he explains. “It has dealt a major blow to freedom of speech in Europe. At this point, indeed, the ECHR might as well be a sharia court.”
               More like a court dedicated to the idea that “peace at any price” — better known as the utterly bankrupt exigency that precipitated WWII — is now the law of the land.
               McCarthy sees part of the big picture, noting that “one objective of sharia supremacists is to establish Muslim enclaves in the West and then pressure the host governments to concede their right to govern themselves under Islamic law.” He adds, “That is not seen as a permanent arrangement. It is a transition on the path to imposition of sharia standards on all of society.”
               The other part of the big picture? America already has its own wannabe supremacists. Nearly half of America’s college students believe “problematic speech” should be restricted, and only 53% believe handing out literature on controversial subjects is “always acceptable.” Even worse, 37% are on board with shouting down speakers, and one in 10 had no problem with resorting to violence to same.
               Students are joined by a cadre of progressive tech titans, suffused with their own notions of permissible speech. Thus Google CEO Sundar Pichai rationalizes his company’s proposal to create a censoring search engine for a liberty-crushing Communist Chinese government, by insisting it will “serve well over 99% of the queries.”
               China has more than 800 million Internet users. If 1% of a single query by each is censored, eight million queries go down Orwell’s memory hole.
               As for the media in general, Victor Davis Hanson sees a nation where “celebrities, politicians, and almost anyone of influence and wealth are always an incorrect or insensitive word away from the contemporary electronic guillotine.” Columnist Robert Stacy McCain aptly notes that the real hate problem in America centers around the “media elite’s hatred of anyone who disagrees with them.” A media who, along with their dummycrats-Democrat allies, would prefer that debates about critical issues like illegal immigration be “effectively criminalized.”
               Americans themselves are also well on their way toward criminalizing hate speech. While the Cato Institute reveals 71% of Americans believe that political correctness silences discussions the nation needs to have, a substantial number of Americans across the political spectrum are still okay with censorship, regulation, and punishment of speech that is “hateful” or “offends” them, even as 82% admit that people can’t discern what speech qualifies as either, or both.
               The ECHR’s ruling is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. As a result of it, McCarthy wonders how long Europe survives if free speech dies. A better question? How long before American courts become like those of the EU, defending the “right” not to be offended in order to “preserve peace?” It doesn’t get more “transformational” — and unconstitutional — than that.

~The Patriot Post  

             Gelernter notes, “Every big U.S. election is interesting, but the coming midterms are fascinating for a reason most commentators forget to mention: The dummycrats-Democrats have no issues. The economy is booming and America’s international position is strong. In foreign affairs, the U.S. has remembered in the nick of time what Machiavelli advised princes five centuries ago: Don’t seek to be loved, seek to be feared. The contrast with the scumbag/liar-nObama years must be painful for any honest leftist. For future generations, the Kavanaugh fight will stand as a marker of the dummycrats-Democratic Party’s intellectual bankruptcy, the flashing red light on the dashboard that says ‘Empty.’ The Left is beaten.”
               While I think the “Blue Wave” has been overstated in the upcoming midterm election, though certainly not to the extent of scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton’s presumed victory in 2016, if the “Left is beaten,” we would expect to see “Republican Waves” as we did in 2010 and 2014. Indeed, based on the Trump administration’s extraordinary domestic and foreign policy record, we should see Republican gains in both the Senate and House.
               All Americans are MUCH better off today than they were two years ago, but that notwithstanding, Republicans will suffer losses in the House. And here is why: This election is a referendum on dummycrats-Democrat voter IQ and the  dummycrats-Demo/MSM chokehold on their opinion — not the considerable Trump record. The result of that chokehold and dummycrats-Demo voter delusion is, as Gelernter notes, one political theme: “We hate Trump.” All the Left has to offer is fear, anger, hate, and division.
               Indeed, Gelernter observes, “What the left hates about Donald Trump is precisely what it hates about America.” They fear him because, “He has no ideology except getting the job done. His goals are to do the task before him, not be pushed around, and otherwise to enjoy life. In short, he is a typical American — except exaggerated, because he has no constraints to cramp his style except the ones he himself invents.”
               Gelernter writes, “Mr. Trump reminds us who the average American really is. Not the average male American, or the average white American. We know for sure that, come 2020, intellectuals will be dumbfounded at the number of women and blacks who will vote for Mr. Trump. He might be realigning the political map: plain average Americans of every type vs. fancy ones.”
               He concludes, “This all leads to an important question — one that will be dismissed indignantly today, but not by historians in the long run: Is it possible to hate Donald Trump but not the average American?”
               At their core, Beltway dummycrats-Democrats, their Leftmedia publicists, and their wealthy elitist benefactors don’t like grassroots Americans and the Liberty they embrace. Unfortunately in this election cycle, we will learn how many Americans are not able to rise above the fear and hatred fomented by the Left.

~The Patriot Post  

Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, who sponsored Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted in 1866 that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” He stated further, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers [emphasis added].”
               In 1873, the Supreme Court concluded (albeit in nonbinding comments indirectly related to the case) that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude the children of “ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States [emphasis added].”
               However, in 1898’s Wong Kim Ark decision, the Court ruled that a man born in the U.S. to Chinese-immigrant parents was a citizen, as were “all children here born of resident aliens.” That still doesn’t settle the question of illegal aliens.
               Essentially, what this debate is about is what all contemporary constitutional debates are about — whether the Constitution is to be understood as our Founders and subsequent authors of amendments intended it to be understood (Rule of Law), or, as dummycrats-Democrats insist, however the political majority du jour wants to interpret it to comport with its contemporary political agenda (rule of men). As Thomas Jefferson warned, the latter means one thing: “The Constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of [those who will] twist and shape into any form they please.”
               Unfortunately, not a few Republicans and other conservatives insist that Trump’s interpretation is unconstitutional, but we believe this is because they  fundamentally misread the 14th Amendment and its authors. To be sure, whether Trump has the authority to, by executive order, undo decades of precedent is another matter — one he intends for the courts to help decide.
               Undoing this unconstitutional damage will require all three branches, however. It is necessary for Congress to pass a law reestablishing the originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, because the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) of 1952 also establishes in U.S. Code what “jurisdiction” means, and, arguably, that includes children born to illegals — at least by the interpretation of the State Department. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who recently found his spine in the Brett Kavanaugh debacle, has introduced a bill to set the record straight.
               Even Harry dinky-Reid was right about this in 1993.  Bottom line: The 14th Amendment was proposed and ratified because of concern that a future Congress might alter the 1866 Civil Rights Act granting citizenship to slaves. Ironically, the argument for birthright citizenship for children born to illegals grossly alters the meaning of the 14th Amendment — and it’s a case study of how dummycrats-Democrats erode the plain language of our Constitution.

~The Patriot Post  

             There was a time long ago when GM was the pinnacle of American industrial might. It was one of the world’s largest companies, and by far the world’s largest automobile producer. Employing hundreds of thousands worldwide, GM was an innovator and a leader. In the 1950s, nearly half of all the cars on America’s roads were produced by General Motors.
               Those days are over. Just a few years removed from receiving a massive taxpayer bailout, Barra is looking to the government to make GM great again by forcing consumers to buy electric vehicles.
               Because nothing says American greatness like forcing people to buy things. It worked for health insurance, right? Right?
               “We are calling for a National Zero Emission Vehicle (NZEV) program to create a comprehensive approach to help move our country faster to an all-electric, zero emissions future,” writes Barra.
               This sounds well-intentioned at first glance. GM laid out its vision last year for zero crashes, zero emissions, zero congestion, a plan to increase electric vehicle production while making cars that were safer and more tech friendly for the 21st century. With this plan, you would think GM is looking to become the leading innovator in the automotive industry again. The only difference is this time Barra wants the government and the American taxpayer to do the work.
               Barra’s NZEV plan basically nationalizes California’s draconian electric-car mandate. It would call for 7% of all new auto sales to be electric by 2021, with a 25% market shareby 2030. She sees this happening by expanding the refundable tax credit for electric car purchases, investing in infrastructure to expand the number of charging stations nationwide, and tightening regulations to steer manufacturers and consumers toward greater production and purchases.
               Barra shrugs aside the cost to taxpayers for such a venture. We’ve already spent close to $5 billion to subsidize electric car buyers. Barra would have us believe that if we stop these giveaways, it will stifle the growth of the electric-car market. But if the federal government needs to pay consumers to buy electric cars, then there is no market — or at least one insufficient to achieve Barra’s goal on her timetable.
               A CEO of a major company should know better. Instead, Barra touts the NZEV’s potential to reduce carbon emissions, and she makes note that car makers and governments in Europe and Asia are already entering into similar partnerships. “The stakes are high, and time is short,” she insists.
               The U.S. is already the world leader in reducing carbon emissions without creating unholy alliances between the private sector and the federal government. And simply stating the tired old argument that “other countries are already doing it” does not highlight the inflated auto markets in those countries, the poor quality of many of their vehicles, or the high taxes that consumers are paying.
               The bottom line is that the electric car cannot be forced on the American public. The market has been around for several years, but the cons still outweigh the pros.
               There are not nearly enough plug-in stations to support a large fleet of electric cars on America’s roads. At this point, many of these cars are still more expensive than conventional automobiles, which meet higher fuel standards than ever before in history. Many electric cars only run about 230-240 miles per charge, and it takes up to nine hours to completely recharge them. This is not workable for long-distance driving.
               Innovation will surely solve these problems eventually, at which point electric cars may become the de facto choice for many consumers. Then prices will drop and the support network will grow. But propping up the entire industry at taxpayer expense is not the government’s constitutional role. Economically, that sort of winner-picking hand-holding stifles growth, to borrow Barra’s phrase. If companies know that they have a captive consumer audience and that the federal government will fill in the gaps on their bottom line, then they don’t have any incentive to innovate. This has been true ever since man began engaging in commerce.
               If electric cars are going to be the wave of the future, then manufacturers must build them that way.

~The Patriot Post  

             Anticipating objections to the legality of the executive order, Trump pushed back, saying he was “always told … that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t.”
               Axios was quick to challenge Trump’s assertion that the U.S. is the only country allowing birthright citizenship by noting that at least 30 countries still do so, but Axios glaringly omits an important qualifier (admittedly a qualifier that Trump himself should have noted): No other developed nation continues to accept birthright citizenship. Canada ended the practice in 2009, leaving the U.S. as the last holdout.
               Whenever any objections to birthright citizenship are raised, proponents quickly point to the 14th Amendment, arguing that it is a constitutionally protected right. But as Mark Alexander has previously explained, “In the very words of the 14th Amendment’s authors … ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clearly and plainly referred to those who were legal citizens. It did not and never has implied any legal standing for the children of illegal immigrants. … The 14th Amendment makes no birthright allowance. Our Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the power to determine qualifications for citizenship, and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment does likewise. Start by amending Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are not eligible for citizenship by virtue of birth.”
               Nevertheless, the ACLU stated, “This is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee is clear. You can’t erase the Constitution with an executive order, [President Trump.]”
               Sen. Lindsey Graham knows better: “Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship. I’ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform — and at the same time — the elimination of birthright citizenship.”
               So does Trump have the executive authority to make this change? Axios is correct in noting that there will certainly be legal challenges should Trump issue the EO. But that may be exactly Trump’s intention — to force the courts to weigh in and provide greater legal clarity on an issue that has long troubled many Americans. Trump’s case is a strong one.

~The Patriot Post  

             It’s true that the Senate bears much responsibility for the partisan circus that is judicial nominations. But Ginsburg misses two huge points. For one thing, it was dummycrats-Democrats in the 1987 Robert Bork hearings who so outrageously character assassinated Bork that his last name became a verb to describe such vicious personal attacks. In 1992, Clarence Thomas suffered what he called a “high-tech lynching.” dummycrats-Democrats merely continued that “heritage” with their vile assault on Kavanaugh.
               But the primary reason the judicial confirmation process has become such a polarizing issue is because of activist judges on the courts. Activist judges — like Ginsburg — are the very judicial despots Thomas Jefferson warned about. They see their role as a means to further their own political agenda rather than to be informed by and limited in their judgements to the text of Constitution and the law. In other words, Ginsburg assigns blame solely to Congress, which by constitutional design is to be the most partisan branch of government, while ignoring her own outsized role in helping to foster an increasingly politicized Supreme Court.
               Even at the advanced age of 85, Ginsburg has yet to learn the wisdom of when to be silent. By expressing her political opinions in both public comments and rulings, she has done more to cause Americans to question the nature of the Supreme Court’s supposedly apolitical standard than the words of President Donald Trump or any member of Congress ever will.

~The Patriot Post  

https://patriotpost.us/articles/59141?mailing_id=3823&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3823&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             He’s right. The elections next week will be one more critical step in the direction of how America will look for generations to come.
               A fount of analysis is available providing polling, trends, historical behaviors, and turnout models aiming to explain this election. But let’s imagine America as the dummycrats-Democrats are advertising.
               First, it’s imperative that public discourse should address openly the historical failures of socialism. The generation clamoring for this collective government-sanctioned way of life has never been educated using historical texts speaking of the greatness of America’s Founders, or of the freedoms sought and established here by deliberate and careful construction of the Rule of Law — observing man’s tendencies and the need for a government that serves its citizens, not creates subjects of tyrannical reign.
               Instead, the generation that is being led pitifully down the path of socialism has been indoctrinated by tenure-protected faculty who preach the gospel of secularism and shame the value of a true faith in God. These academics are the evangelists of the collective and manufactured rights available only to the devout who worship at the altar of Big Government — a government that replaces the family; redefines life, gender, and marriage; and speaks of equal outcome instead of equal opportunity.
               Recent polling indicates that 57% of dummycrats-Democrats view socialism favorably. Surely, these folks are simply ignorant of the actual history of socialism’s implementation.
               The fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 exposed the worst of socialism in a world power. China’s control over its production, information, and property enslaves its population. National Socialism (Nazis) and Marxist Socialism (Communists) murdered at least 100 million people in the 20th century.
               Oh, but those are “extreme” examples, we’re told. Today’s demand for “democratic socialism” is marketed via social media and Google algorithms and sent around by young adults who have no ability to critically think or reason. Ironically, without a free market in a nation that observes property rights, most people would not have access to the capital needed to have the smartphone that spreads their contagion. These comrade-wannabes also miss that the flow of information would be controlled by the state to ensure its subjects were compliant to the needs of masses, not influential on matters such as offering consent to be governed.
               With the campaigns of commie-Bernie Sanders (the modern prophet of socialism), Elizabeth “Fauxchahontas” dinky-Warren, commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and socialist-Beto O'Rouke on the dummycrats-Democrats’ slate of progressives, the promise of free college tuition with no strings tickles the ears. The “right” of health insurance seems logical when you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that government has its own money and economy without productive citizens lawfully paying their taxes, and that “free” health insurance is as simple as slinging pixie dust. A “universal wage” is equally appealing to those who have spent four, five, and six years completing a degree in women’s studies with a minor in Celtic History and find that their degree yields a job as often as one could find teats on a bull.
               The allure of the version of socialism dished out by today’s dummycrats-Democrats is pure desperation for anything to draw voters to their partisan pity party of disgruntled and perpetually aggrieved victims.
               So what would socialism look like in America? We could bring to mind Venezuela, where people are going without food, medicine, and social order, while rationing such simple items as toilet paper. We could also look at this “caravan of migrants” coming from Honduras, which is exporting its miserably poor because it refuses to import the currency of Liberty.
               But more appropriately, take a look at America’s 31st state, California, to see how socialism takes root. With its vast wealth of population and natural resources, the Golden State has the fifth largest economy in the world, surpassing Great Britain. Yet it remains within the top 10 of these United States as having the highest tax burden on individuals and businesses. Inching toward a single-payer health insurance system, Californians provide illegal immigrants not only with safe harbor in the sanctuary state, but provide them with benefits such as health care, tuition and, even voting rights in local elections.
               And what’s happening in this “democratic socialism” on the Left Coast? The state admits to about $1.3 trillion in debt (trillion, not billion). Headlines recently noted that typhus is on the rise. Yeah, that typhus, spread by fleas of rodents. Human feces are a problem in San Francisco, homeless camps are turning Los Angeles into a trash heap, and the call for more spending rings loudly as California proudly promotes itself as the destination for the invasion coming up from Central America.
               The new “dummycrats-democratic socialism” turns the land of the free and the home of the brave into the land of disease and home of the depraved and enslaved. Wake up, America. Go Vote!

~The Patriot Post  

             The Independent is setting the stage. “Families pushing toddlers in strollers. A group of skinny young men who say there are no jobs in their country. A young woman from Guatemala being helped by medics by the roadside, her ankle twisted and swollen after six days of walking. These are the Central American migrants Donald Trump is sending extra troops to the border to protect America from,” the UK paper asserts.
               Not exactly. Some tossed rocks at police while they broke down the border fencebetween Guatemala and Mexico. As for the notion the caravasion is comprised solely of Central Americans, reporters embedded with the group insist it has been infiltratedby Bangaladeshis and others from Haiti, Congo, Sri Lanka, Angola, and Cameroon. Reporter Sara Carter asserts she also “bumped into a number of young MS 13 gang members.”
               Assertions of spontaneity are equally absurd. Reported  organizers include Bartolo Fuentes, a former member of the Honduran national Congress that represented the political party of deposed president Manuel Zelaya. As Johan Obdola, president of the Latin America-focused global intelligence and security firm IOSI explains, it is in the interests of people like Zelaya, who oppose the current government, to “actively create violent acts and destabilization in Honduras,” using caravans to foment “constant chaos.” Zelaya denies it.
               Another of the caravasion’s organizers is Pueblo Sin Fronteras. The English translation? “People Without Borders,” making their agenda self-explanatory.
               Vice President Mike Pence, who has been in contact with the presidents of Honduras and Guatemala, said he was told leftist groups financed by Venezuela are also underwriting the marchers. And immigrant activist Irineo Mujica from Phoenix, one of the main organizers of last spring’s migrant caravan, was arrested in the Mexican town of in Ciudad Hidalgo.
               And, as always, there’s the media and its agenda. “Thousands of people don’t spontaneously decide to leave their homes and walk thousands of miles, violating multiple international borders, without some help,” writes columnist Larry O'Connor. “We are all curious about this part of the story; why aren’t the reporters?”
               Because a well-organized effort whose primary intention is to challenge America’s sovereignty would be exposed, and that would require feckless American politicians to take a side. And not just about the current caravasion. As the latest data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reveal, it is little more than an ideologically orchestrated sideshow.
               Why? According to CBP, approximately 400,000 illegals were apprehended attempting to breach the border in FY 2018. Since the CBP estimates its apprehension rate is 50%, it is likely that nearly 800,000 illegals attempted that crossing last year alone.
               In other words, America was invaded by approximately 15,300 people — more than twice the reported number of current caravanners — every week.
               Why isn’t that headline news? Because it doesn’t facilitate the coordinated effort to use the current march to fuel an anti-Trump agenda. Thus when the president announces his intention to stop this invasion from reaching America, he is stoking “a naked fear campaign aimed at turning out his supporters,” as CNN asserts, and “fears about foreigners and crime ahead of the Nov. 6 vote,” as The News Times insists. Moreover, closing the border “would force American economic prosperity to a back seat to American fear, lies and propaganda,” columnist Ricardo Varela declares.
               And all of it would be precipitated by a president who Jim Acosta insists has made a lot of Americans wonder other or not he considers himself a “white nationalist.”
               Thus, much like the Israeli-Palestinian showdown, the media stage is set. “The left, of course, is using this whole caravan situation to its best political advantage, painting those who resist the infiltration as uncaring, absent compassion for those of obvious lesser means,” Washington Times columnist Cheryl K. Chumley writes. “And truthfully, a clash between these people and the U.S. military would make great TV for the left, especially in and around an election season. Can you imagine the crying children? Sens. Elizabeth dinky-Warren, scumbag-Cory Booker, lowlife-Kamala Harris and Media & Company sure can.”
               Compared to what? A nation with no borders and the Rule of Law in name only? Greater numbers of border-busters than the 15,300 per week than America endured this year? Crashers further incentivized by a toothless catch-and-release policy that puts the odds of them staying here, in full defiance of the law, overwhelmingly in their favor? Crashers who refused offers of jobs and housing by Mexico, completely undercutting assertions they are merely people in search of work or refuge?
               Trump is sending 5,000 troops to the border and contemplating an executive order that would block asylum seekers tailored along the lines of the travel ban approved by the Supreme Court.
               “By my estimate, we should have four to five U.S. personnel for every member of the caravan. If we want to protect our country, our border, and our rule of law, we must mobilize so much force that we don’t have to use it,” Newt Gingrich writes. “The news media should be allowed to cover the preparation and the overwhelming response to the caravan, so the members of the caravan — and every potential caravanner across Central and South America — will see that their plan will not work.”
               That only happens if Trump follows through on upending a globalist agenda of expendable borders and expendable Americans reduced to cogs in the transnational machinery. Promises that put the president squarely at odds with “Chamber of Commerce” Republicans, dummycrats-Democrats, the mainstream media, open-border activists, and unelected “resistance” operatives within the government, all of whom will seek to undermine national sovereignty.
               This stunt — and that’s exactly what it is — is a line-in the-sand moment: Either we remain a genuine nation, or become a nation in name only. One where “compassion,” as it is solely defined by the American Left, is the only “standard” needed to gain entry.
               Israel made its choice. America needs to make the same choice — political optics be damned.

~The Patriot Post