I urge all followers to send Trump a tweet asking him not to make deal with Rocket Man if it involves us giving him money not to proliferate, since that's the same scenario that's gone on for decades and N. Korea always takes money and continues to build nukes underground. Pls go to: http://PatriotsVotingCoalition.weebly.com and make suggestions under COMMENTS. Twitter will try to block this message too. Earl
All Posts (29750)
.
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ Gordon Chang discusses the ongoing trade initiatives by President Trump to reset the trade imbalance with China... The dynamic of confronting a bilateral trade relationship with a government controlled economic state China is the dynamic behind the discussion. Mr. Chang does a good job of outlining the ‘big picture’ issue from the perspective of the Trump administration trade policy toward China..
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQt0gZt3zDg
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55212-video-trey-gowdy-has-had-it-with-the-swamp
.
by Katie Pavlich
{ townhall.com } ~ Speaking to reporters at the White House Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen briefed reporters on President Trump's plans to send the National Guard to the southern border with Mexico and warned human smugglers are taking advantage of legal loopholes in U.S. immigration law.
"Smugglers are gaming the system," Nielsen said. "The traffickers and smugglers know that if you arrive with a family, under our current legal and court systems, you have a much better chance of being released into the United States."
Nielsen noted that while illegal aliens used to mostly be single males, 40 percent today are family units with small children. She credits this change to U.S. catch and release policy, which requires Border Patrol and I.C.E. agents to allow family units to stay in the United States. They are given a court date, which they rarely show up to, and take years to process. Currently the wait time to see an immigration judge is as long as three years with a backlog of more than 80,000 cases.
"Legal loopholes continue to hamstring efforts to enforce our immigration laws and secure our border, ultimately resulting in catch and release. Catch and release practices have enabled the vast majority of Unaccompanied Alien Children [UAC] who enter the United States each year to avoid removal," the White House released in a statement Wednesday. "Currently, based on a consent decree in a court case from roughly twenty years ago, the Department of Homeland Security can only detain UAC for a maximum of 20 days combined. All UAC must be promptly transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services for reunification with sponsors in the interior of the United States. Further, current Federal law prevents UAC who are not from Canada or Mexico from being promptly returned to their home countries. UAC are unlikely to appear in court for removal hearings once released, and as a result they generally go on to remain in the country."
"For years, catch and release has enabled tens of thousands of UAC to enter and remain in the United States. It is time to close the loopholes and ensure Federal authorities are empowered to fairly and effectively carry out immigration enforcement efforts," the statement continues.
President Trump terminated administrative catch and release policies last year, but Congress is the only way to change U.S. immigration law that allows illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. after entering the country without permission.
"The problems with catch and release are solvable problems," Nielsen said, adding Congress has an obligation to change the law. "Our current border security and immigration laws fail the American people."
Nielsen also said President Trump wants to end all magnets that continue to attract illegal aliens to the United States.
"Border security is national security. Security of our nation is not a partisan issue," she said.
{ heritageaction.com } ~ Passed in 1974, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act establishes a process for cancelling unnecessary funding to executive branch agencies... Under this law, the president may withhold and permanently cancel funding to executive branch agencies passed into law by Congress. This is accomplished only if Congress approves of the president’s special message that includes rescissions specifying the “amount of budget authority” to be rescinded, as well as “all facts, circumstance, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission.” Congress is not required to introduce a rescission bill and can introduce a bill containing fewer rescissions than requested by the President. Once the special message is delivered and a rescission bill is introduced and referred to the relevant committee, the committee has 25 calendar days to report the bill. If the committee fails to report the bill, any member can discharge the bill from committee with one-fifth approval of the chamber vote. Debate on the motion to the recession bill is limited to two hours in the House, ten hours in the Senate, and two hours for a conference report within the period of 45 days of continuous session following delivery of the special message. A rescission bill not included in the president’s special message is subject to the filibuster. If the Republican Party is truly concerned with excessive spending and debt, the Impoundment Control Act provides the best opportunity to undo the damage of the recently-passed omnibus spending package. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of Americans are “a great deal” or “a fair amount” concerned with federal spending and the budget deficit. By reining in federal spending using the Impoundment Control Act, congressional Republicans can demonstrate to midterm election voters that they will govern responsibly and steward taxpayer dollars if re-elected to the majority. It also gives the GOP leverage in future spending negotiations by neutralizing the threat of a democrat filibuster and government shutdown. https://heritageaction.com/blog/gop-should-exercise-fiscal-restraint-through-the-impoundment-control-act?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpCalpEYzBNak5pTkRjMiIsInQiOiJsampLQ1Zndjd3cHd5bTVPZjRjdmpSNmQzVlU1YXNKXC9PQkwxeHRKNEY1cE1ZYlVvcWtXZ05XZGJFWTRTbjUzWE91bElEdU9MWkJIcFRyVktXc1VDUitOSXpHVGxIRVhXa29HdlRxam4wdDVyR3FQaFFlNEptTG1zUHRJTmhIQmQifQ%3D%3D
by Cal Thomas
{ townhall.com } ~ Fox News host Laura Ingraham has apologized, as has the network, for nothing more serious than her tweet: "David Hogg rejected by four colleges to which he applied and whines about it. Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA ... totally predictable given acceptance rates."
The 17-year-old Hogg, a survivor of the February 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, is the new face of the anti-gun movement, having achieved overnight victim status, reserved, apparently, only for those on the left, which supposedly insulates him from criticism.
Hogg rejected Ingraham's apology and called her a "bully." Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me"? If Hogg thinks he is being bullied by Ingraham, how would he react to a real bully, the kind who punches you in the face?
Instead of adopting a "poor me" stance, Hogg should have asked to appear on Ingraham's show where the two could have debated the issues. He didn't make this request; instead he swiped at Ingraham in the media. Isn't there something a little cowardly about that?
I first met Laura Ingraham in the early '80s when she was a student at Dartmouth College. Even then she was smart, articulate and opinionated. She and two male colleagues got into a battle with the college administration over a student publication called "The Dartmouth Review." The conservative campus newspaper often satirized the growing political correctness movement, including attempts by the school to remove its Native American mascot.
Laura is a kind, compassionate woman and a practicing Roman Catholic. She is a single mother of three adopted children who might have experienced a far different life without her. She is also a breast cancer survivor.
The left says things far worse than what she tweeted about David Hogg. My hate mail makes her remarks seem tame by comparison, but I don't demand apologies. I can take it.
Speaking of comparisons, recall what Joy Behar said on ABC's "The View" about Vice President Mike Pence's Christian faith. She mocked his beliefs and suggested they might reflect a mental illness.
Apparently under similar pressure from ABC, Behar apologized on the air and went further, calling the vice president and apologizing to him directly, which he graciously accepted.
In an interview with The Outline, Hogg spewed the worst profanities and insulted parents, who he thinks are stupid because they are not fluent in social media. Where is parental discipline when it's needed most? If he were my kid and behaved as he does, he'd be grounded. If the behavior continued, he'd have to find somewhere else to live.
Some sponsors have pulled their commercials from Ingraham's show, as some did after Behar's insulting remark.
This is the wrong approach. Instead of boycotts and threats, how about celebrating the First Amendment by encouraging people to say what they think? Then viewers can decide whether to "buy" what a program is selling or change channels. That was what the left said to do in the 1980s when conservatives were upset by some TV programming. "If you don't like it, change the channel," they said. If that was an option then, why isn't it an option now?
Debate is better than boycotts and pressure, egged on by groups that raise funds from this type of controversy. The country and its politics would benefit from genuine debate, rather than attempts to silence people with whom we might disagree.
Let David Hogg speak his immature mind and let Laura Ingraham have her say. And then let them debate each other, assuming Hogg doesn't want to adopt another role, that of coward.
{ jewishworldreview.com } ~ Benjamin Netanyahu has now been under investigation for more than a year. The police have given immunity to two members of his inner circle. Perhaps these state's witnesses know things that will be incriminating. Or not. It's all under wraps for now.
In the meantime, the presumption of innocence is the Israeli prime minister's first line of defense, and so far it is working. 2019 is an election year and Bibi intends to run, indictment or not. If you believe the 10 separate opinion polls conducted recently, he and his center-right coalition will very likely win and continue to govern.
Unlike Donald Trump, Netanyahu can't shoot someone on a city street and still keep his loyal base. But Bibi isn't accused of shooting anyone. His alleged crimes are taking expensive cigars and champagne from "friends," exploring but not consummating a deal for better press coverage in a newspaper by undercutting its competitor, and awarding special treatment to a telecommunications magnate in return for what might be nothing more than positive coverage for Bibi's wife on the magnate's online news site.
Such offenses strike Likudniks as esoteric political misdemeanors, business as usual. As for the prime minister, he sees it all as a political witch hunt and is sticking to his mantra: "They won't find anything because there's nothing to find."
When the investigations heated up a few months ago, a couple of Bibi's coalition partners hinted they would force him to step down if he was indicted. The recent polls have convinced them to take a step back. Netanyahu is a proven winner after all. And, as they say in racing circles, you can't beat a horse with no horse.
He stands unchallenged in his own party, and faces a weak field of contenders on the center-left. In a recent prime-ministerial preference poll, he got more support than the major opposition party leaders combined. They finished third and fourth, behind "Don't Know/Other."
Bibi's appeal goes beyond the Israeli "deplorables" who make up his base and the coalition pols who want to ride him back into office. The general public regards him as an experienced and successful prime minister. Even his bitter enemies concede that Israel is more secure and prosperous than it was when he came to power. They tend to attribute this to luck.
Netanyahu, of course, sees it as the fruit of his wise and effective leadership. The slogan for his next campaign will be: "You've Never Had It So Good."
This boast has received international validation in recent weeks. In mid-March, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development issued its annual economic report card for its members, the industrialized democracies. Israel - with 3.3 percent annual growth, a "comfortable" external surplus and an enviable public-debt-to-GDP ratio - got a high grade.
Not only that, the OECD ascribed this stellar performance to Israel's "long history of effective micromanagement policy settings and bold structural reforms." Netanyahu instituted many of these reforms and policies during his tenure as finance minister (2003-2005), and he has presided over them during his near-decade as prime minister. Obviously he doesn't deserve all the credit, but incumbents get bragging rights. And an endorsement by the OECD makes a great talking point.
So does the annual Gallup Poll survey of Israel's standing with the American public, released in early February. For years, Netanyahu's critics have accused him of endangering American sympathies for Israel with his hard-line policies on Palestinian independence and strident opposition to Iranian expansion.
These accusations reached a crescendo in 2015, when he appeared before a joint session of Congress and openly called for a revolt against the Barack liar-nObama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. The Israeli commentariat overwhelming pronounced this a disastrous act of hubris certain to damage American public support.
Bibi dismissed the dire predictions as alarmist. And, according to Gallup, he was right; 74 percent of U.S. adults now have a favorable view of Israel - the highest rating since 1991, when Iraqi missiles were fired at Israeli cities by Saddam Hussein. And, despite Netanyahu's obvious Republican leanings and close ties to Trump, support is trans-partisan: 83 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents and 64 percent of Democrats.
The single most important piece of good news arrived in early March, courtesy of the U.N.'s annual "Happiness Report." The survey asks people in 156 nations to evaluate their lives, using criteria such as health care, life expectancy, social support and personal freedom. For the fifth year in a row, Israel finished in 11th place, just behind Australia and considerably ahead of the U.S., the U.K. and France. Happy voters are an incumbent's best friend.
Netanyahu is still not home free. Constant police interrogation is a drag on his time and attention. With his wife, Sara, and his son Yair implicated in some of the cases, it doesn't do much for his family life, either. If the cops come up with proof of serious criminal behavior rising to the level of moral turpitude, Bibi will almost certainly be indicted.
When his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, faced that prospect he resigned - and wound up in prison. Netanyahu is a tougher and more audacious character, and he has the public support Olmert lacked. Indicted or not, he intends to be on the ballot. And if he wins re-election, he'll face his legal troubles with another talking point: The people have spoken.
.
.
by Byron York
{townhall.com} ~ Recently, I took part in a debate on the question "Does the Russia investigation endanger the rule of law?" I said yes.
First, a caveat. If "endanger the rule of law" means "destroys our legal order and threatens our democracy," then no, I don't think the Trump-Russia investigation does that. But if it means "involves our nation's most powerful law enforcement and intelligence agencies in reckless political conduct that undermines our system of elections and the orderly transfer of power," then yes, the Trump-Russia investigation does, in fact, endanger the rule of law.
Two incidents from 2016 and early 2017 point to the danger posed by overzealous Trump-Russia investigators.
The first is that the Justice Department used the Logan Act, which bars private Americans from conducting foreign policy, as a pretense to pursue an investigation against the Trump team.
The Logan Act was passed in 1799 and has never been used to successfully prosecute anybody. No one has even tried since the 19th century. It is, by any practical measure, dead -- look up the legal concept of "desuetude."
And yet, in the summer of 2016, some prominent Democrats began accusing Trump of violating the Logan Act. They said he broke the law by sarcastically encouraging Russia to release liar-Hillary Clinton's famous deleted emails. Several called for hearings.
Then, after Trump's victory, stunned and angry Democrats watched him prepare for the presidency -- and prepare to undo many of Barack liar-nObama's policies.
Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman introduced the "One President at a Time Act of 2016," which would specifically subject presidents-elect to the Logan Act. Rep. John Conyers, then the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump for a possible violation of the Logan Act.
All of that was just political posturing -- not a threat to the rule of law. But unbeknownst to the public, the liar-nObama Justice Department was using the Logan Act as a pretext to take action against the incoming administration.
When intelligence intercepts picked up Michael Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, talking to the Russian ambassador in late December, the liar-nObama Justice Department saw that as a possible violation of the Logan Act. It wasn't; many foreign policy experts saw nothing wrong with that.
Nevertheless, four days into the Trump administration, Sally Yates, the liar-nObama holdover leading the Justice Department, sent agents to the White House to question Flynn, ostensibly on the suspicion that he might have violated the Logan Act.
It was that interview that ultimately resulted in Flynn pleading guilty to one count of lying to the FBI.
The bottom line is, the Flynn saga, which is at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation, appears to have hinged on a trumped-up suspicion that a new administration had broken a centuries-old law that has never been prosecuted before -- when, in fact, the new administration's real transgression was to make clear it would throw away many of its predecessor's policies.
The second incident that suggests the Trump investigation threatens the rule of law is the FBI's use of the Trump dossier -- a liar-Clinton campaign opposition research product -- as a part of its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.
To compile the dossier, a Democratic law firm hired the opposition research group Fusion GPS, which hired a former British spy named Christopher Steele, who paid a number of Russian "collectors," who then talked to other Russians, who provided gossip about Trump. The most spectacular gossip is the dossier's description of Trump, in a Moscow hotel room in 2013, watching as prostitutes played out a kinky sex scene.
Steele took his material to the FBI, and the bureau agreed to pay Steele to keep gathering dirt on Trump -- an astonishing development in the midst of a presidential election.
And even though the pay-for-dirt deal fell through, the FBI still incorporated the dossier into its Trump-Russia investigation. It was used as the basis to ask a secret court to grant a warrant to wiretap an American, Carter Page, in October 2016.
Now fast-forward to the transition. In early January 2017, intelligence chiefs James Comey, John Brennan, Mike Rogers and James Clapper traveled to Trump Tower to brief the president-elect on Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 campaign.
After the briefing, by a plan they had devised earlier, three of them left the room, leaving Comey alone with Trump. Comey gave Trump a summary of the dossier, including the Moscow sex scene.
Imagine that. The very first time the incoming president met the FBI director face-to-face, the FBI's message was: We know about you and those hookers in Moscow.
In their new book "Russian Roulette," authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn report Trump thought the FBI was blackmailing him:
"Trump had seen this sort of thing before," they write. "Certainly, his old mentor Roy Cohn -- the notorious fixer for mobsters and crooked pols -- knew how this worked. So too did Comey's famous predecessor J. Edgar Hoover, who had quietly let it be known to politicians and celebrities that he possessed information that could destroy their careers in a New York minute."
The intel chiefs' briefing of Trump soon leaked to the media. And the fact that top officials had seen fit to tell the incoming president about the dossier made it a legitimate news story. Within hours, Buzzfeed published the entire dossier on the internet.
As Sen. Charles clown-Schumer said as all this was happening: "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you."
With the Logan Act, liar-nObama holdovers used a dead law as a pretense to push the Trump investigation. With the dossier, they used unverified opposition research not only to investigate the Trump campaign, but to execute a clever maneuver to make the dirt public.
And this was all done by the nation's top law enforcement and intelligence officials, targeting a new president. So yes, it is reasonable to say the Trump-Russia investigation endangers the rule of law.
.
Dems' Goal: Make Illegals a Legal Voting Block
The politics of class warfare has long been a staple of the Democrat party and it has always been home to an elitist class desiring to force its socialist ideology upon the rest of America. However, this elitism has never been so pronounced or so out of touch with everyday Americans as it is today. Democrats, it can be argued, are campaigning against America and its history. And nowhere is this reality more evident than in the sanctuary state of California — a state long controlled by Democrats.
In 2013, California passed Assembly Bill 60, which granted illegal aliens the right to obtain legal driver’s licenses. Since the bill’s passage, more than one million illegals have obtained licenses. Investor’s Business Daily explains, “Providing documents to ‘undocumented immigrants,’ of course, merely makes them ‘immigrants.’ That’s the intent, we suppose, of a law that makes it not only legal but easy to remain in California, even if you commit felonies once you are here. All they have to do, thanks to that 2013 law, is ‘prove their identity and residence within the state.’”
Democrats are transitioning from using the issue of illegal immigration as a means for advocating higher wages to now turning and pressing for legalization of illegals as the party seeks to build a new voter bloc to replace the largely abandoned middle working class and blue-collar Americans and their values. How else does one explain the comments from presumed 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris? Harris tweeted last month, “For the second year in a row, few undocumented youth applied for financial aid in California because they are distrustful of our government. This is a direct product of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. No one in America should ever have to live in fear of our government.” The intent is clear, Democrats’ long-term strategy and goal is to make illegal aliens legal, granting them the right to vote, and in so doing replace their dwindling traditional base.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55202-dems-goal-make-illegals-a-legal-voting-block
The following pretty much tells you all you need to know about what's going on in America now. In 2001 I was prosecuting a class action suit against Hillary & DOD to recover the earned, promised, no cost lifetime healthcare 4 retired military. One of the class members called me and said I should look at the website for the Progressive Caucus, then look at the website for the Communist Party of America. The platform issues were identical, word for word. Not trusting the Internet I went to Pelosi's office in D.C. the following week to hear from the horse's mouth a denial or confirmation. Instead I got a staffer who never answered my questions. Two days later I flew back to San Antonio, looked on the website again, and the platform had been totally erased. I told many people about it, but since it was no longer there, they didn't believe me. Then in 2012, LTC. USA, Ret. Alan West found the same thing, somehow, but the media squashed the story, but if you google Alan West/2012/Communist Party/Progressive Caucus, you'll see his version of how he knows that the Progressive Caucus, all of its members (70 at the time), 7 all of those afraid to come out of the communist closet, are nothing less than communists in our very own Congress. Check it out for yourself. Twitter tries to block my conservative messages like this one, so ignore them; I do. Instead, I prefer to communicate at my web page: http://PatriotsVotingCoalition.weebly.com click Contact & tell us 3 things you'd like to see our government do next. You may also want to read a free copy of "The Real Communist Plot", which is posted on the site. Earl
.
.
https://rickwells.us/commiela-harris-sale-money/
.
George Washington University Tackles
'Christian Privilege'
Earlier this week, The College Fix reported, “The event will teach that Christians enjoy a privileged, easier life than their non-Christian counterparts, and that Christians possess ‘built-in advantages’ today, according to its online description. The workshop will also discuss how Christians receive ‘unmerited perks from institutions and systems all across our country.’” In what alternate universe?
Interestingly, the Fix goes on to note, “By the end of the training, the organizers want participants to be able to name ‘at least three examples of Christian privilege’ and ‘at least three ways to be an ally with a non-Christian person,’ the website states.” As Christians already know, one core tenant of genuine Christianity is to show grace and mercy (i.e. “be an ally”) toward sinners and unbelievers. Meanwhile, some Islamists, particularly in the Middle East, systemically enslave women, rape them and treat them like garbage. They also kill or persecute “infidels” and perpetuate jihad. Where’s the denunciation of this extremely violent form of privilege?
The workshop could only redeem itself if it pointed out, as Peter Heck does, that “Christians are privileged to join as heirs in a Kingdom that was not ours and that we’ve done absolutely nothing to earn.” But of course that’s not the angle George Washington University planned to take, and it’s a shame. As Heck notes, “You want to know what privilege is? True privilege? It’s that ‘while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ The truth is you can’t really know privilege unless you are a Christian.” What a refreshing and thoroughly Christian take on the subject.
In 1788, George Washington wrote, “The hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” Something for the students at George Washington University to think about.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55179-george-washington-university-tackles-christian-privilege
{ youtube.com } ~ Former CIA Director John Brennan has said an investigation into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Kremlin is "well-founded"... He told the House Intelligence Committee he was aware of intelligence showing contact between Russian officials and "US persons involved in the Trump campaign". Mr Brennan said the Russians "brazenly interfered" in last November's US elections and were "very aggressive". But he said he did not know if the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. Mr Brennan, who stepped down as CIA director in January, testified on Tuesday: "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. "It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdJ3OZS928Q
At Last — A Military Religious Liberty Win
Most Muslims are also against same-sex marriage, but it’s not exactly a mystery how investigators would have behaved differently had Bohannon opposed the certificate as a Muslim instead of as a Christian. To his great credit, Bohannon refused to acquiesce and recruited First Liberty Institute as his legal counsel. Some Republican members of Congress chimed in also, urging Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson to rectify the situation. And rectify it she did, freeing him from the shackles of anti-Christian hostility and resuming his career.
According to Secretary Wilson, “Colonel Bohannon had the right to exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs and did not unlawfully discriminate when he declined to sign the certificate of appreciation for the same-sex spouse of an airman in his command.” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), says “the news of his reinstatement was almost as shocking as his temporary dismissal.” How so? In the words of Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of FRC: “When you overrule an inspector general or independent investigator, that’s a big deal. That takes a lot of time and a lot of nerve. It’s very rare.”
Secretary Wilson has it exactly right: “The Air Force has a duty to treat people fairly and without discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation and [Bohannon] met that duty by having a more senior officer sign the certificate.” In fact, every government installation has that duty. Col. Leland Bohannon tried not to create a scene by having a superior officer sign the certificate. But the master sergeant couldn’t tolerate an opposing viewpoint and wanted revenge. The Air Force initially obliged, and it shouldn’t have. The whole military should follow Secretary Wilson’s lead.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55146-at-last-a-military-religious-liberty-win
.
by Rick Noack
{ jewishworldreview.com } ~ Saudi Arabia appears to be in the middle of an attempt to rebrand the kingdom as progressive and, judging from the headlines since last year, the strategy appears to be working, at least to some extent.
Last September, the kingdom announced it would finally allow women to drive. One month later, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said he wanted to return to a "moderate Islam."
Now, in an interview with The Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg, the crown prince has acknowledged that Jewish people have a right to their own homeland --- long a taboo for the conservative kingdom that was long known as a fierce foe of Israel's creation.
While Saudi Arabia in the past has talked about recognizing Israel in the context of a peace deal with the Palestinians, the crown prince's straight up acknowledgement that the Jews have a right to a homeland is the clearest statement to date.
On a practical level, Saudi Arabia has de-facto acknowledged that right since at least 2002 when it began sponsoring an initiative to foster a two-state solution - a solution that has also long been supported by the United States, even though with different premises. But officially, Saudi Arabia does not recognize the state of Israel.
While Saudi officials made Israel's withdrawal to its territory prior to the 1967 Israeli-Arab war a precondition for closer relations in the past, that fundamental demand was not explicitly repeated by the crown prince in the Atlantic interview.
"I believe that each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation. I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land. But we have to have a peace agreement to assure the stability for everyone and to have normal relations," he told The Atlantic.
The timing for the acknowledgment does not appear to be a coincidence, as it follows months of diplomatic gestures, including the opening of Saudi Arabia's airspace to commercial Israel-bound flights and the acknowledgment of backchannel communications between both governments.
After decades of threatening rhetoric, Saudi officials appear increasingly willing to strike a carefully conciliatory tone as they seek a new ally to confront their common arch enemy Iran and build stronger economic ties.
"Saudi Arabia has traditionally been a place that has produced a lot of anti-Semitic propaganda. Do you think you have a problem with anti-Semitism in your country?" Goldberg asked later in the Atlantic interview, to which Mohammed responded: "Our country doesn't have a problem with Jews. Our Prophet Muhammad married a Jewish woman. Not just a friend --- he married her."
"Our prophet, his neighbors were Jewish. You will find a lot of Jews in Saudi Arabia coming from America, coming from Europe. There are no problems between Christian and Muslims and Jews. We have problems like you would find anywhere in the world, among some people. But the normal sort of problems," said Mohammed, adding that there were "lot of interests we share," including economically.
The crown prince's economic reasoning laid out in the interview will likely play into the hands of critics who have long suspected the kingdom's progressive rebranding to be primarily a marketing ploy. When the crown prince announced a more "moderate Islam" last year, critics cautioned that the declaration might have more to do with boosting the kingdom's economy rather than reversing decades-old practices.
Mohammed, 32, has attempted to position himself as a favorite for the kingdom's younger citizens, who are less religious than older generations and are facing disproportionately high unemployment rates. The Saudi leader is currently pursuing a major reform plan, named Saudi Vision 2030, to revitalize the kingdom's economy.
The need for reforms may already have reversed at least some of the leadership's previous ultraconservative stances, including the driving ban for women. The step was widely interpreted as a sign that the modernizers within the Saudi government may have gained ascendance over the conservative hard-liners. Saudi Arabia's hard-liners have been under mounting pressure to agree to such proposals, as the kingdom has become increasingly engulfed in economic woes.
But the reforms have still been limited. Women's subordination to men remains unchanged and repressions against Shiites have continued --- despite Mohammed's assurances in the interview that all was well between Sunnis and Shiites in the country.
In fact, Crown Prince Mohammed has repeatedly stirred tensions against Iran, a majority-Shiite country. In an interview with the Guardian newspaper last year, he blamed Saudi Arabia's arch enemy Shiite Iran for Saudi Arabia's turn toward Wahhabism, an ultraconservative branch of Islam, which is being promoted by Riyadh both domestically and abroad. Religious scholars say that the Saudi state is deeply rooted in and has long been intimately entwined with Sunni Wahhabism. That same Islam was widely promoted in Muslim countries around the world, thanks to the Saudi state's deep pockets.
In the Atlantic interview, Mohammed nevertheless doubled down on his criticism, saying that "the Iranian supreme leader makes Hitler look good."
.
.
Few things are more infuriating than the nation’s de facto capitulation to those who cross our borders illegally. And nothing says capitulation more forcefully than the con game known as America’s “catch and release” policy.
A news release by the Department of Homeland Security outlines how that game is played: “Due to legal loopholes and court backlogs, even apprehended illegal aliens are released and become part of the temporary, illegal population of people that we cannot remove.”
One of those loopholes is the Flores Settlement Agreement. In 1985, two groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) detained by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). An agreement was reached in 1997, but litigation has continued for more than 20 years, and numerous court decisions have hindered the DHS’s ability to detain and quickly remove UACs. Under the current agreement, the DHS can only hold UACs for 20 days, after which they must be released to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) where they are placed in shelters or foster arrangements until a sponsor is located.
The other loophole is the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It essentially defined any UACs not from Mexico and Canada as “refugees,” exempting them from a quick return to their home countries.
The liar-nObama administration gamed these loopholes with impunity. First, thousands of children deemed to be “refugees” were placed with the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which subsequently dispersed them throughout the nation.
Central America got the “welcome” message. Between 2009 and 2014, this effort engendered an astounding 1,243% increase in the number of UACs coming from El Salvador, a 1,429% increase in the number coming Guatemala, and a 1,784% increase in the number coming from Honduras.
Unsurprisingly, the massive influx overwhelmed detention space, and thus many of these UACs were released.
To whom? During a 2014 Senate hearing, former HHS Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families Mark Greenberg admitted that the refusal to inquire about the legal or illegal status of family members taking custody of illegal immigrant children was HHS policy.
In other words, guardianship of illegal children was granted to other illegals.
What happened as a result was completely predictable. “American immigration courts have the highest failure to appear rates of any courts in the country,” explained Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) columnist Mark Metcalf in 2017. And lest anyone think this failure rate is strictly about “refugees” or illegals from South or Central America, think again. “Among those who absconded from court were 3,095 aliens from the 36 countries that promote terrorism,” Metcalf adds. “A disproportionate number — 338 altogether — came from those countries the U.S. State Department labels state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Sudan, and Syria.”
When Trump was elected, a sizable respite from this onslaught occurred. Unfortunately, the border surges have returned, and National Border Patrol Council (NPBC) President Brandon Judd wants Americans to know exactly who is to blame. “The Republicans control the House and the Senate: they do not need the Democrat support to pass any laws they want,” he declared. “They can go the ‘Nuclear Option’ just like what they did on the confirmation. They need to pass laws and end the catch-and-release program.”
And if they fail to do so? “[Illegal aliens are] going to create havoc and chaos,” he warns. “I mean, how many times do we have to hear stories of United States citizens being killed by people who are here illegally before we actually do something?”
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is attempting to do something about it. In the next three weeks he plans to introduce legislation that would allow immigration agents to send those caught crossing the border illegally back to their home nation while their claims are being adjudicated, rather than continue abiding the “caught, released, fail to show up in court” charade that currently prevails. “The reason why 70 percent of [illegal aliens] don’t make their court date is because [the federal government doesn’t] make them stay in their country,” Inhofe explained. “And, obviously, if I were in that position, I’d be off someplace else too.”
Naturally, there was pushback. “Have we really stooped this low? This suggestion is absurd, illogical and cruel — not to mention a waste of resources,” asserted Kica Matos, director of the Washington, DC-based Immigrant and Racial Justice at the Center for Community Change. “Republicans need to focus on making communities safer instead of continuing to tear families apart.”
Making communities safer by ignoring catch and release? Tell that to Kate Steinle’s family, Ms. Matos. Or the families of the nearly 30 people murdered by MS-13 members on Long Island. Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Americans victimized by the thousands of illegals incarcerated in federal prisons, along with those in state and local prisons, all of whom were responsible for wholly avoidable crimes — if American lawmakers were really interested on making our communities safer.
Judd reminds us how the game continues to be played. “The smugglers are coaching them and telling them exactly what they need to say so all they have to do is come here and claim that they fear to go back to their country, and they don’t have to provide any evidence whatsoever,” he explains. As a result, “We’ll do hours’ worth of processing, and then we will turn them over to ICE and ICE will release them, based on what they call a credible fear, and [they] disappear in the shadows.”
Why does government remain so remiss? Judd believes too many officials are counting on Trump being defeated in 2020 and are “trying to wait him out.” In the meantime, he adds, they are “trying to throw a monkey wrench into everything he is trying to accomplish.”
How toxic is that mindset? Fred Burton, a counterterrorism expert and chief intelligence officer for Stratfor, believes it would take a “9/11 kind of moment — a weapon of mass destruction, an assassination of a key government official” before America took what he characterized as “draconian measures to secure the border.”
One of those “moments” has apparently arrived. “Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” President Trump stated Tuesday. DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen clarified that Trump will send National Guard troops to assist the Border Patrol, and that the White House had drafted legislation to close “loopholes” with regard to those seeking asylum.
Seemingly, that takes care of the “front door.” But there is still plenty of “interior” work left to do. “Since fiscal year (FY) 2016, more than 107,000 UACs have been released into the interior of the United States,” reveals a statement released Monday by the White House. It further notes “only 3.5 percent of UACs who are apprehended are eventually removed from the U.S.”
Thus, until equally “draconian measures” are applied to that reality, catch and release remains alive and well.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55169-catch-and-release-remains-alive-and-well
Opinion in Brief
David Limbaugh: “The Left’s crusade against Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt should be seen for what it is — a witch hunt. … This conspiratorially organized assault against Pruitt is precisely what Barack liar-nObama and his friends mean by community organizing. It is vicious, relentless street fighting aimed at discrediting Pruitt and taking him down because he is one of the rare administrative officials who won’t put politics above the law and will stand up to those who do. … Leftist activists and their media co-pilots are hellbent on disgracing Pruitt and destroying his reputation to effect his removal, so they are throwing all kinds of phony scandals against the wall of public opinion to pressure the White House to give them Pruitt’s head. The energy they are expending on this should tell you how important progressives view unelected, unaccountable administrative agencies in implementing their draconian regulations, which have been choking our individual liberties and wreaking havoc on our economy. … The Left considers Pruitt a hill to die on. So should we.” ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55199-friday-opinion
.
.
Trump Deploys Troops to Border
Along with this news is a report that the apprehension rate of illegals at the border has increased by 203% since last March. Trump, who campaigned heavily on stemming the problem of illegal immigration via building up stronger border security and a wall, pointedly blamed Democrats for the lax laws, while emphasizing that he will act. Trump stated, “We have very bad laws for our border, and we are going to be doing some things. … Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military.” Trump added, “We can’t do anything about it because the laws that were created by Democrats are so pathetic and so weak.”
Trump is doubling down on arguably the number one issue that won him the presidency, and he’s using it to create a clear political dividing line between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have proven themselves the party of the radical Left by their siding with noncitizen illegal aliens over and against the interests of Americans. Thus Trump’s tweet on Monday: “Congress must immediately pass Border Legislation, use Nuclear Option if necessary, to stop the massive inflow of Drugs and People. Border Patrol Agents (and ICE) are GREAT, but the weak Dem laws don’t allow them to do their job. Act now Congress, our country is being stolen!”
Predictably, the Leftmedia has been making hay over Trump’s call for sending the military to the border, as if it was unprecedented. Oregon Democrat Gov. Kate Brown pledged to defy Trump if he requests National Guard troops, tweeting, “If [Trump] asks me to deploy Oregon troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no. As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by Trump’s plan to militarize our border.” The truth is the past five U.S. presidents have sent troops to the border to aid the Border Patrol.
Meanwhile, that caravan of 1,000 illegal aliens crossing Mexico with the intent of illegally crossing into the U.S. appears to have had a change of plans. One of the caravan’s de facto leaders, Irineo Mujica, head of migrant advocacy group Pueblo sin Fronteras, stated, “We will wrap up our work in Mexico City. We have support teams at the border if there are people who need assistance there, but they would have to travel on their own.” Mujica added, “There are too many children — 450 in all. There are lots of babies. Hopping the train, as we did in the past, would have been crazy.” Was that really the reason, or did it have more to do with the fact that Trump is sending in the troops? ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55171-trump-deploys-troops-to-border
.
.
.
by RONN TOROSSIAN
{ dailycaller.com } ~ On December 15, 2017, I spent the day testifying in Washington, D.C., in front of the Mueller Commission grand jury at the United States District Court. As Business Insider first reported in 2012, I was approached by Paul Manafort and Rick Gates to do public relations work for the Ukrainian government, and not to report said work to the Department of Justice as required by FARA laws. (I am the president of a large public relations firm in New York City.)
Manafort and Gates also implied they’d pay me off-shore.
Kyle R. Freeny, a special investigator in Mr. Mueller’s office, strongly urged me to do my patriotic duty, drop all my professional and personal responsibilities and appear immediately in front of the grand jury about a short meeting held over five years ago which I vaguely remembered. I reluctantly woke up for a 6 a.m. shuttle flight and spent the day in court. Prior to that testimony, I shared the limited details during interviews with government investigators. I verified that I spoke with Manafort and Gates a few times in February and March 2012. I shared the handful of emails of which I was in possession and testified under oath that the emails were accurate.
After hours of repeating the same thing again and again, questions then veered into Russian names I’d never before heard including Konstantin Kilimnik, and questions about previous work I have done for Russian oligarchs, confirming that I know Roger Stone, worked for Eric Trump’s Foundation in 2017 and more. Yes, my New-York- City-born kids understand Russian as my ex-wife is Russian, and yes, they attend the same New York City school that Ivanka’s and Jared’s kids did.
After being thanked profusely by Ms. Freeny and a series of stern-looking attorneys, alone, I exited the courtroom, ignored questions from the media outside the courthouse and took the ACELA back to my Park Avenue office. Not surprisingly, Manafort and Gates have been indicted, yet nothing has connected this matter to President Donald Trump.
This investigation feels like a witch hunt, even more so after reading yesterday’s CNN report that
“Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators have questioned Russian oligarchs travelling in the U.S. about whether they donated to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. One oligarch was questioned and his electronic devices searched when his private jet landed in the U.S., and a second Russian oligarch was also questioned during a recent trip to the U.S. An informal interview request has been made to a third oligarch who has not recently been to the U.S.”
If, in fact, foreign money came into the United States and impacted elections, then it must be uncovered. Yet is it the American way now to question the most powerful people of a foreign foe as those people enter this country? What would our government say if billionaire GOP donor Sheldon Adelson was questioned when visiting Russia? How would we feel, say, if scum-George Soros’s private plane was searched upon arrival in Moscow and he was questioned? Our government would rightfully be in an uproar — and Russian President Vladimir Putin is right to raise hell if these reports are accurate. And he will surely order American billionaires to be questioned in Russia.
It is a dangerous, slippery slope, and one which has nothing to do with the mission of the special counsel investigation, which is supposedly to explore links or coordination between Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government. By now, the cost of this government investigation is tens of millions of dollars including an $86.52 reimbursement check I cashed for travel. Finally, this week there was the first sentencing of someone indicted by Mueller. Stop the presses: A 34-year-old attorney of Skadden Arps was sentenced to 30 days in prison and fined $20,000 for lying to the FBI about not reporting work he did for a Ukrainian oligarch who he’s related to.
He should be charged and punished. Yet, is this the most important task for the Department of Justice?
Yesterday, media reported that my client Felix Sater was questioned about “Russian election meddling.” Sater — a real estate entrepreneur and former partner of Donald Trump — sent an email in 2016 to his childhood friend, Michael Cohen, who is Trump’s lawyer about his desire to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. The deal went nowhere, and Sater, now having spent who knows how much in legal fees, is being dragged repeatedly to Washington, D.C., to speak about his desire to build a building.
What in the world does this have to do with Russians meddling in the election?
Sater — who alleges that he is a former high-level U.S. government intelligence asset who provided vital security to the government for years — came to the United States at the age of eight, is an American citizen. He is American-educated. And while he is, in fact, well connected, he’s about as connected to meddling in the election as I am to life on Mars.
In February, the House Intelligence Committee memo revealed that a dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and the liar-Clinton campaign led to the creation of the Mueller commission. It’s time for this witch hunt to end. There are plenty of things not to like about President Trump, but if the American people seek to remove him from office the place to remove him is at the ballot box. Enough is enough.
.
.
.
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{ townhall.com } ~ Robert Mueller is the special counsel appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 to probe the nature and extent of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. The investigation began in October 2016 under President Barack liar-nObama when the FBI took seriously the boast of Carter Page, one of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy advisers, that he had worked for the Kremlin.
The FBI also had transcripts of telephone conversations and copies of emails and text messages of Trump campaign personnel that had been supplied to it by British intelligence. Connecting the dots, the FBI persuaded a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue a search warrant for the surveillance of Page, an American.
Page never registered as a foreign agent, and working for the Kremlin and not registering as a foreign agent is a crime for which the FBI should have investigated Page. Such an investigation would have included surveillance, but not from the FISA court. Surveillance in a criminal case requires a search warrant from a U.S. District Court based upon the constitutional requirement of probable cause of crime -- meaning that it is more likely than not that the thing to be searched internet and telephone communications will produce evidence of criminal behavior.
But the FBI didn't seek that. Instead, it sought a warrant to surveil Page's communications based on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act standard, which is probable cause of communicating with a foreign power. This lower, easier-to-demonstrate and unconstitutional standard is the tool of choice these days for FBI agents because it requires less effort and is used in a court that grants 99.9 percent of search warrant applications.
The temptation to use the FISA court and its easy standard instead of a U.S. District Court and its privacy-recognizing constitutional standard to get a search warrant is often too much for the FBI to resist. This is a form of corruption because it presents a path for criminal investigators to invade the privacy of Americans that the Constitution protects.
Yet the FBI used whatever it learned from the surveillance of Page to get that surveillance extended. Even the Trump Department of Justice went to the FISA court to spy on Page. Lost in all this is the purpose of FISA -- to prevent government surveillance of Americans and limit it to agents of foreign powers.
When Jeff Sessions became attorney general, he recognized that he himself would most likely be a witness in the Mueller investigation because of his involvement in the Trump campaign, so he removed himself from all matters pertaining to Russia, and his deputy, Rosenstein, appointed Mueller to run the investigation.
What is Mueller looking for?
When the feds are examining a potential crime committed by a group, their treasure-trove of evidence can often be a member of the group who reveals the criminal behavior of his former colleagues. That's why the feds often indict people for crimes that appear to be irrelevant to the ones they are investigating -- in this case, lying to the FBI and bank fraud allegedly committed before the 2016 election.
When such an indicted person can then be persuaded to turn on his former colleagues in return for a lesser charge or a lighter sentence, prosecutors can have a field day. This is a form of bribery -- you tell us on the witness stand what we want to hear and we'll go easy on you -- that is permitted only to prosecutors; and the courts condone it. If defense counsel gave as much as a lollipop to a witness to shade his testimony, both would be indicted.
From the backgrounds of those whom Mueller's grand juries have indicted and from the deals they have cut with him, it appears that Mueller is looking at three areas of potential criminal behavior. Mueller has already established as a base line the saturation of the 2016 presidential campaign by Russian intelligence agents. If his indictments of these Russians are accurate, they were here virtually and physically and they spent millions to help Trump. But the indicted Russians are not coming back to the U.S. for their trials.
Mueller is examining their potential American confederates for the crime of conspiracy -- or, as my colleagues in the media call it, collusion. This would be an agreement by campaign officials to accept something of value from a foreign person, entity or government, even if the thing of value -- for example, liar-Hillary Clinton emails -- was never actually delivered. The crime is the agreement, and it is prosecutable after at least one of those who agreed takes a material step in furtherance of the agreement.
Mueller's second area of examination is possible obstruction of justice by President Trump himself. Obstruction is the interference with a judicial proceeding for a corrupt purpose. Was FBI Director James Comey fired because Trump couldn't work with him or because he was hot on the president's trail and Trump wanted to impede that? If it was the former, it would have been licit. If it was the latter, it could have been criminal.
The third of Mueller's areas is financial dealings by the pre-presidential Trump. These bear little surface relationship to Russian involvement in the campaign, yet evidence of wrongdoing must have come to Mueller from his FBI agents or his cooperating witnesses, and he is following the money as prosecutors do.
Where will all this go? The president cannot seem to find an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Mueller has 16 experienced federal prosecutors and a few dozen FBI agents passionately at work. And he also has witnesses he legally bribed and a few hundred thousand documents from the White House and from Trump's financial affairs that the president has not personally reviewed.
And now Mueller wants to interview the president. Who will have the upper hand if that happens?
{ freedomoutpost.com } ~ Why won’t FBI Director Christopher Wray and DOJ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein hand over a clean copy of the July 2016 FBI Electronic Communication (EC)... that opened the investigation into the Trump campaign? As a puffed-up Robert Mueller smugly offers dates when he may or may not wrap up his investigation into possible Trump-Russia collusion, repeated requests by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) to obtain an unredacted copy of the document are blocked. Robert Mueller is simply reveling in his own self-importance. He acts as though he is the most powerful man in the country these days. And he just may be. He is the puppet master who holds all the strings. When will he reveal to the nation his investigation’s findings on obstruction charges for President Trump? When will his investigation end? I suppose it will end when Mueller believes it will cause maximum damage to the Republicans in the upcoming mid-term elections. Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee requested a copy of the memo in February and received a heavily redacted copy on March 14th. The memo was too redacted to yield any pertinent information. On Wednesday, a new letter was sent to Wray and Rosenstein demanding a clean copy... https://freedomoutpost.com/obstruction-continues-christopher-wray-rod-rosenstein-trying-hide/
.
.
.
Who Killed MLK's Dream? by Mark Alexander: On this day 50 years ago, April 4, 1968, 39-year-old Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered in Memphis, Tennessee, by a racist sociopath from Alton, Illinois, named James Earl Ray.
The night before his death, King preached at the Mason Temple, headquarters of the Church of God in Christ. Having been warned of threats against him, he prophetically declared:
“I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
Dr. Gary S. Smith, emeritus chairman of Grove City College’s history department, observed that King’s “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” sermon “ranks with John Winthrop’s ‘A Model of Christian Charity’ and Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’ as among America’s most famous.”
King’s pastoral influence in that era was rivaled only by his friend Billy Graham.
That fateful day in 1968 was a Thursday, and King was killed around 6:00 in the evening. On Friday, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, and three of her children, joined by faith leaders and thousands of citizens, marched in Memphis to support King’s work.
I was an 11-year-old kid in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and I recall that at noon on that Friday, Chattanooga’s mayor called for a memorial service at a noted local venue, led by black and white community leaders and attended by 1,500 citizens. There was a dusk-to-dawn curfew enacted several days after King’s assassination, because a few hundred black high school students congregated to express their frustration. I recall the distinct quiet during those curfew nights — unlike many other large cities, there was no violence and the curfew was lifted.
Riots elsewhere were an affront to King’s insistence on nonviolent protest, and they resulted in 40 deaths and significant property damage. More than 100,000 soldiers and guardsmen were called up to support police and firefighters.
In 1968, I had no real sense of abject racism or school segregation. There was only one elementary school in our suburban community, and we had black classmates from kindergarten forward. There were degrees of inequality, but little overt racial tension in our town, which MLK had referenced in his famous 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington: “Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.” (He had never been to our small town but had visited Chattanooga in 1960.)
In fact, though there were plenty of racist haters, both white and black, in the South, I would not fully experience ethnic division and racial hatred firsthand until the mid-1970s as a high-school student in Connecticut. On a few occasions while defending black friends, we rumbled with racist “greasers” (the North’s version of “rednecks”) in pool halls and bowling alleys. But it was my many weekend trips to Boston and New York where I first experienced widespread systemic hatred.
Everybody hated everybody. The Italians hated the blacks hated the Irish hated the Jews hated … ad nauseam. Here, there was overt ethnic and racial division the likes of which I had never experienced in the South. Though the most noted racial tensions in the ‘60s had been in the “Deep South,” which has since been stereotyped, I found out that ignorance and hatred were not geographically specific.
It was only when I returned to the South, after graduating from a state police academy and completing my undergraduate degree, that in a law-enforcement capacity I was sent to “observe” a few of the KKK events still occurring — events that also defied geographic stereotypes. At the first major Klan event I witnessed in Georgia as part of a federal task force in 1982, the two ranking Klansmen were both from the Northeast. But Martin King understood racism in the North.
In1966, he went to what would later become Barack liar-nObama’s hometown, Chicago, which was then, as it is now, a violent city. King went there in an effort to cool the hotbed of racial hatred that was emerging in that city, mostly fomented by the Democrat power brokers under then-Mayor Richard Daley.
After his visit, King observed, “I’ve been to Mississippi and Alabama and I can tell you that the hatred and hostility in Chicago are really deeper than in Alabama and Mississippi.” No small irony that MLK would be murdered by an Illinois racist.
Forty years later, liar-nObama, a neophyte “community organizer” from that same racist hotbed, a student of Marxist mentors and a disciple of afrocentric hatred indoctrinated by his “pastor,” Jeremiah Wright, was raised up by the Democrat Party to become president.
In the five decades since King’s death, the Party of liar-nObama has institutionalized racial division as a central strategy of its political platform — with the help of an opportunistic King lieutenant, Jesse Jackson, and other poverty pimps like Al Sharpton, all of whom have betrayed King’s “dream.”
In King’s most famous speech, to more than 250,000 people at the National Mall in Washington, DC, he declared, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ … I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. … And if America is to be a great nation this must become true.”
But the Democrat Party of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize recipient’s era has devolved into a political machine fueled by hate and division — one that has turned the wisdom of this iconic sovereign’s most quoted remark upside down. It’s as if King had said, “I have a dream that my children will be judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.”
Today’s Democrat leaders are consummate race-bait hustlers who have defiled King’s legacy — and that of Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglas. They’re intent on keeping poor blacks enslaved on modern day urban poverty plantations, the effluent of the so-called “Great Society.” For Democrats, black lives matter only inasmuch as they are a dependent voting bloc.
But there are also bold black Americans who have rejected the Left’s statism and institutional victimhood, and they are thus subject to the condemnation of many on the Left. One of the most outspoken detractors of the Left’s orthodoxy is MLK’s niece, Alveda King. She was 17 at the time of her uncle’s assassination, and she has offered some insights on the anniversary of his death.
She recalls a conversation with her father on that day in which she said, “I hate white people, they killed Uncle M.L.”
He replied, “No, white people didn’t kill my brother; white people didn’t kill your uncle. White people march with us, pray with us, go to jail with us, live with us, die with us. No, no, the devil did this. You have to forgive; you have to forgive.” Such forgiveness is anathema to most of today’s black leaders.
Alveda added, “Acts 17:26 says, ‘Of one blood God made all people, to live together on the face of the earth.’ So we can be brothers and sisters because we are one blood; we are the human race. And I believe if my uncle were here today, he’d like for us to consider ourselves as human beings, not different races. One race, colorblind.” We should all remember that Liberty is colorblind.
In 1967, King, who began as a preacher at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, declared, “Before I was a civil rights leader, I was a preacher of the Gospel. This was my first calling [and] remains my greatest commitment. [All] I do in civil rights I do because I consider it a part of my ministry.” And it is in that context that he is best remembered.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/55144-who-killed-mlks-dream
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55203-friday-top-headlines
.
.
Leftist Knives Are Out for Scott Pruitt
Another “scandal” surrounds Pruitt’s travel and beefed up security. He flies first class rather than coach and considered the use of a private plane, and he spends a lot of money on security. Why? Because ecofascist psychos have leveled death threats against him, along with other lesser physical threats. Never mind that Barack liar-nObama’s EPA chiefs, Lisa Jackson (a.k.a. “Richard Windsor”) and Gina McCarthy, spent more on travel, violated transparency and broke laws.
Long story short, leftists hate Pruitt almost as much as President Donald Trump because he’s been very effective in threatening the Left’s Church of Climate Change Dogma. Mollie Hemingway notes, “When he was attorney general of Oklahoma, he sued the EPA more than a dozen times to get the powerful regulatory agency to stay within its legal authority.” Since taking office at the EPA, a rundown of Pruitt’s accomplishments is impressive. He stewarded the agency through the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, rolled back Barack liar-nObama’s clean water and clean power regulations, cut costs by $1 billion, pushed through transparency reforms on how the EPA uses science, and, just this week, scrapped liar-nObama’s vehicle-emissions rules.
No wonder ecofascists hate him. Make no mistake: Environmentalism of the type followed by statists is a religion, and Pruitt is worse than at odds with its teachings; he’s directly challenging its tenets and undoing its sacraments. That’s why we’re seeing a coordinated effort to discredit and oust him. Fortunately, Trump called Pruitt Tuesday to tell him to “keep fighting” and that “we have your back.” The Swamp needs draining and that’s why Pruitt must stay. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55133-leftist-knives-are-out-for-scott-pruitt
Be sure to Click LIKE at the bottom of this article, and share it everywhere!!
By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
Over the past week or so, a “caravan” of “immigrants” has been making its way from Central America, through Mexico, towards the United States, which has brought about a twitterstorm from President Donald Trump, as one might well expect.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of it…let me first explain who is unabashedly behind this thing.
It just happens to be some group that calls itself, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, or, in English…People Without Borders. That, of course begs the question…just what in the hell does this group believe in aside from no borders?
Well…
Here’s their mission statement…
.
.
by Michelle Malkin
{ townhall.com } ~ Open borders tour guides in Mexico illegally shepherding 1,500 Central Americans to the United States border declared victory this week. Mexican officials reportedly are offering humanitarian visas to avert a showdown. But the parade of immigration lawlessness marches on -- with reckless aiding and abetting by churches across the U.S.
Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the group in charge of the annual "migrant caravan," launched its effort during Holy Week by invoking the Stations of the Cross with biblical costumery and prop crosses. When they're not serving as human traffickers masquerading as human rights activists, these travel agents for amnesty busy themselves constructing shelters along their illicit pathways that span the globe. Catholic groups have sponsored and subsidized such nation-sabotaging campaigns for decades.
The Vatican itself donated at least $20,000 in 2009 to erect a shelter for Central American illegal aliens sneaking through Ixtepec, Mexico, where they hopped on freight trains into our country. Another papal society, Catholic Extension, has poured more than $12 million dollars into ministries along our southern border over the past five years "to ensure that those who are on a journey are protected by the Church and that we advocate on their behalf," according the Catholic News Agency.
In Colorado, five illegal aliens have taken sanctuary in houses of worship in the outlaw safe spaces of Mancos, Denver, Carbondale and Boulder -- more than any other state. Each had multiple bites at the legal apple that stretched out for years. Our immigration courts heard their cases, rejected their appeals, turned down the appeals of their appeals and ordered them to leave. Religious groups have provided lawyers and media relations consultants every step of the way.
In Washington state, the Jesuit-affiliated St. Joseph Catholic Church of Seattle blasted President Trump's "destructive and brutal" immigration enforcement and declared "our unwavering solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the immigrant community." All deportations violate "Catholic Social Teaching" and "the common good," the parish asserted.
In Manhattan's Upper West Side, the Fourth Universalist Society of New York is harboring a mother and her family who've lived here illegally for more than a dozen years and feel entitled to flout their deportation orders.
In Springfield, Massachusetts, the South Congregational Church is shielding a Peruvian woman and her two children facing deportation. Mayor Domenic Sarno has called on the city council to revoke the church's property tax exemption so that no "public dollars shall be allocated for the purpose of interfering with the religious freedoms of South Church in accordance to our Constitution." In response to a rare public official taking his legal and fiduciary responsibilities seriously, the church's leader condemned Sarno's soul.
In Las Vegas, the incoming Catholic Bishop George Leo Thomas announced that illegal immigration and gun control will top his spiritual agenda. Echoing the left-wing U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, Thomas pledged to support and advocate for the so-called illegal alien Dreamers and welcome them into the church.
In San Diego, Catholic and Episcopal leaders united to protest construction of the border wall while waving Mexican flags. "Jesus said we should love our neighbor," one argued.
True, but Scripture also teaches citizens to honor the rule of law and secular authorities who preserve and defend civil order and safety: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Romans 13:1-7).
The Acton Institute's Brooke Levitske put it more bluntly: "Christ expected his followers to treat criminals in prison the way they would treat him, but he said nothing about busting them out of prison."
As a Catholic who believes in strict immigration enforcement, I have argued repeatedly that it is one thing to show compassion to legal immigrants, legitimate refugees and asylees, and those abused and mistreated by smugglers. It's quite another to conspire against an orderly immigration and entrance system that imposes commonsense limits, eligibility requirements, criminal background checks, medical screening and a commitment to assimilation.
Our laws are clear: 8 U.S. Code Section 1324 makes it a felony to knowingly bring or attempt to bring aliens across the border illegally; to knowingly conceal, harbor or shield them from detection in reckless disregard for the law; and to engage in any conspiracy or to aid and abet such acts.
We reserve the right to regulate entry into our country for the same reasons the Vatican itself has high barriers, armed guards and metal detectors. Yet, Pope Francis has lambasted President Trump and our walls as "not Christian."
If you don't like our laws, change them. If you can't respect our sovereignty, go organize a caravan of alien trespassers and seek permanent shelter at the Sistine Chapel. Good luck with that.
.
China Tariffs: More Moves and Counter Moves
As Trump foresaw, Beijing was quick to hit back, announcing that it will level $50 billion in tariffs against U.S. goods, specifically agricultural products, such as soybeans and beef, as well as the auto industry. The Wall Street Journal notes that China focused on “goods that were chosen to hit U.S. states that supported President Donald Trump.” News of the tariffs sparked fears of an escalating trade war, which sent stocks plummeting again. However, it’s important to note that none of these tariffs have been enacted, and there is likely a lot of wheeling and dealing that will occur before any are imposed.
Trump responded to fears of a trade war, tweeting, “We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!”
One interesting factor here is the clear motivational differences behind the tariff threats between Trump and Beijing. Trump is right about the unfair trade imbalance and Chinese theft of U.S. company intellectual technologies, and his intent is to rectify the situation. Beijing on the other hand is seeking to keep the gig going and has reacted with tariffs specifically designed to hurt Trump politically. China isn’t interested in fair trade; rather the totalitarian government is aiming to weaken Trump politically so that he is forced to capitulate to its abusive trade practices.
It is the twisted “advantage” a totalitarian government has over that of a representative democracy. The Chinese governing elites are free to force their will on their populace with little political blowback. In a representative democracy, however, the president is ultimately beholden to the will of the people, and therefore Trump’s options are limited. That said, while politically speaking Beijing may have an advantage, China is still behind the eight ball on this issue economically — it has much more at stake than does the U.S. Jianguang Shen, an economist at Mizuho Securities, notes, “Beijing is facing a difficult time now as it has resorted to its core weapons, such as soybeans and cars. If the disputes escalate, what else can Beijing use?” In other words, in the geopolitical chess match, Beijing is countering with a big move in the hopes of creating enough political blowback in the U.S. to force Trump to back off his tariff threats. Will it work?
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55136-china-tariffs-more-moves-and-counter-moves