Skip to content

Today Jefferson Davis; Tomorrow Thomas Jefferson

May 19, 2017

Chuck Baldwin


Source …..

All over the United States, memorials and statues of the great men of the Confederacy–along with the flags of the Confederacy–have either already been taken down or efforts are underway to take them down. I’m talking about places such as Biloxi, Mississippi; Charlottesville, Virginia; Austin, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; Charleston, South Carolina; St. Louis, Missouri; Baltimore, Maryland; Orlando, Florida; and Memphis, Tennessee. The city of New Orleans, Louisiana, has taken down the statues of President Jefferson Davis and General P.G.T. Beauregard. The Jefferson Davis statue had stood since 1911. General Beauregard’s statue had stood since 1915.

In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He said if the South lost, “It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, and traitors.

Folks, please understand that the ONLY people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. If one is wrong, both are wrong. How can we celebrate the Declaration of Independence of the American colonies in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861?

In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

In fact, before the South seceded, several northern states had threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far more sacred than a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully separate (under Natural and divine right) is the most preposterous proposition possible.

People also say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did not free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had no authority in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Lincoln had no more authority to issue a proclamation in the CSA than the British Crown has authority to issue a proclamation to the states of the USA today.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation didn’t free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? (Source: Mildred Lewis Rutherford, “Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States, and Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States,” 1861-1865, p. 35)

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln actually SUPPORTED an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which would have been the 13th Amendment) proposed by Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin that said: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln supported an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: Why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery–especially considering that the VAST MAJORITY of southerners did NOT own a single slave? What nonsense!

The problem was, Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were much LOWER than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between The States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861: “The War is waged by the government of the United States, not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact–BY FORCE. The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln himself said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln himself said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. . . . The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about The War Between The States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that triggered Southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

Here’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “Civil War.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., any more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper name for that war is either “The War Between The States” or “The War Of Southern Independence ” or, more fittingly, “The War Of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and in all likelihood ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the other leaders of the Confederacy had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against Lincoln’s aggression.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the South, but many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you THAT.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag, the Portuguese flag, the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a very small fraction of southerners even owned slaves, and the vast majority of southern leaders, including Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson, openly supported abolishing slavery.

The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it already had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called Civil War was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself are responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And all of the hysteria over the Confederate Battle Flag is just so much propaganda. The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrew’s Cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrew’s cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts–including the quotation above–that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered by Pastor Weaver several years ago. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor John Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today–and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth (and now twenty-first) century–is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

And speaking of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, you can mark my words: after the Lincoln-worshipping socialists have finished removing the statues and memorials that honor the brave men of the American Confederacy, they will turn their attention to removing the statues and memorials of the brave men of the American colonies. That’s what tyrants do: they try to remove all semblances of resistance from any city or country that they conquer. That is exactly what socialist-sponsored terror groups, such as ISIS, are attempting to do among the communities they control in the Middle East; and that is exactly what the socialists in America (Republican and Democrat) are doing in our country right now.

Today it is Jefferson Davis; tomorrow it will be Thomas Jefferson.

P.S. For folks to truly understand Abraham Lincoln and his war against the South, I believe it is absolutely essential to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s phenomenal book “The Real Lincoln: A New Look At Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, And An Unnecessary War.”

Instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln was in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain’s.

Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized–as the Founding Fathers intended–to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states’ rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provocative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our Republic to this very day.

You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were doubtless never taught in school–a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody and unnecessary war.


Donald Trump’s Seven Days in May

May 19, 2017

Andrew P. Napolitano


Source …..

In a period of seven days this month, President Donald Trump fired James Comey as director of the FBI and was accused of sharing top-secret intelligence data with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador to the United States, the latter a known Russian spy.

The Comey firing was clumsy and rude. Comey learned of it from FBI agents in Los Angeles who noticed reports of it on television monitors that they could see while he was speaking to them. The White House initially claimed Comey had been fired because of his poor judgment in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, in which he announced that she would not be indicted even though there was ample evidence to indict her and then reopened the case two weeks before Election Day even though there was no evidence to justify doing so.

Then the president said he had fired Comey because he objected to Comey’s public personality. Then the president claimed that though Comey had told him he was not the subject of any FBI investigation, Comey had not been investigating Trump administration intelligence community leaks with the same vigor with which he had been investigating allegations of collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government.

Then Trump met with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador. Then someone who was at the meeting or privy to it afterward, American or Russian, revealed to The Washington Post that at the meeting, Trump had boasted of intelligence data related to the Islamic State group. Then Trump himself admitted sharing this intelligence with the Russians.

A leak of top-secret material by the president or by an anonymous source is potentially catastrophic, and the charge that the president himself revealed top secrets to a known Russian spy is grave, perhaps the gravest ever leveled at an American president in the modern era. The Americans and the Russians at the meeting with Trump denied that he had compromised intelligence sources or revealed the location of American military, but they did not deny that he had revealed top secrets.

All of these events took place in seven days. Here is the back story.

When Comey usurped the authority of the ethically challenged then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and announced that Hillary Clinton would not be indicted for espionage — the failure to safeguard state secrets that had been given to her for safekeeping — even though there was a mountain of evidence of her guilt, it seemed to me that he was trying to have it both ways. He was trying to keep his job by pleasing both Republicans and Democrats. Instead, he grossly miscalculated and substantially irritated leadership in both parties, including Clinton and Trump.

At the same time he was exonerating Clinton legally while damning her politically, he was investigating the Trump campaign, about which he quite properly did not say a public word. And he authorized his agents to engage a former British intelligence agent to dig up dirt on candidate Trump and to pay him $50,000 for it. The story the agent dug up was so lurid and unbelievable that the FBI declined to make the payment.

Comey’s leadership of the FBI was flawed, but not so flawed as the reasons given for his summary firing. Those inconsistent reasons fed the Democrats’ narrative that Comey had been onto something in the Russia/Trump campaign investigation and the president had known it and wanted to derail it. The president has yet to deny this.

Though the president has complained that Comey failed to investigate leaks of intelligence data from within his administration, The Washington Post effectively accused the president himself of becoming the leaker in chief by revealing to the Russians information so secret that only a handful of Americans legally possessed it. That information consisted of the name of a city in Syria from which spies had reported that the Islamic State group was plotting to plant bombs on commercial airliners.

What is so secret about that? Intelligence data almost always requires reading between the lines. Doing so here reveals the country from which the intelligence came, as there is only one friendly country that has sufficient intelligence resources in that city to develop local human spies. That country, which the president did not name but which we know is Israel, at first threatened to cut off providing intelligence data to the U.S. because of the president’s private revelations but later said that all is forgiven. So, the president told the Russians where to find Israeli spies in Syria.

The fact that these revelations were private is of legal significance. Under federal law, the president can declassify any secrets, even the most highly sensitive and guarded ones. He can do so by whispering the secret into someone’s ear or by formally removing the secret from its classified status. But because he did not do the latter, the secret is still a secret — yet The Washington Post has this material and may now legally reveal it.

How can a newspaper reveal a top secret that the president has not made public? If someone reveals the secret to the newspaper, it can. The person who did so in this case committed a felony, and the president is right to be angered over it. That person is probably a member of the intelligence community bent on frustrating or destabilizing or controlling the Trump presidency. Because that person gave it to the Post and because there is enormous public interest in knowing what Trump told the Russians, the Post is free to publish it.

All of this demonstrates that rogue intelligence agents can engage in their own form of agitprop — agitation propaganda. And they can cause political harm with it. Yet the questions of whether Donald Trump revealed top secrets to the Russians and, if he did so, whether it was intentional or not and whether it was harmful to national security are questions to which we are entitled to answers. And was Jim Comey fired for getting too close to the truth or not close enough?

Why do these questions keep coming?


U.S. Yanks Scathing Report Blasting DHS for Catching Less than 1% of Visa Overstays

May 19, 2017

Judicial Watch


Source …..

Fifteen years after Islamic terrorists exploited the U.S. government’s inept method of tracking visa overstays, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) still uses an antiquated system that doesn’t have the capability to get the job done. This allows foreign individuals, who may “pose severe national security risks” to remain in the country, according to a federal audit that for unknown reasons was yanked from the public domain. A 45-page report was issued this month by the DHS Inspector General and Judicial Watch reviewed it thoroughly before the watchdog mysteriously pulled it from its website. Judicial Watch has repeatedly reached out to the DHS IG’s office but has received no response. Here’s the link that went bad as also noted by a few other outlets.

To be sure, the findings are an embarrassment to the government because visa overstays have been a major national security issue for well over a decade. Several of the 9/11 hijackers remained in the U.S. after their visa expired to plan and carry out the worst terrorist attack on American soil. A few years after the 2001 attacks Congress launched a system that was supposed to take care of the problem by tracking the entry and exit of foreign nationals with electronically scanned fingerprints and photographs. But five years and $1 billion later, the system, U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT), still had serious flaws. A few years later the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), published a report confirming that nearly half of the nation’s illegal aliens entered the U.S. legally and overstayed their visas undetected. In the years that followed the government did little to improve what has developed into a dire national security disaster. In 2011 yet another federal audit confirmed that the U.S. had lost track of millions who overstayed their visas and two years later the crisis intensified when DHS lost track of 266 dangerous foreigners with expired visas. The government determined that they “could pose a national security or public safety concerns,” according to the director of Homeland Security and Justice at the GAO.

Just last year Judicial Watch obtained DHS figures showing that more than half a million foreigners with expired visas—like the 9/11 jihadists—remained in the country, thousands of them from terrorist nations like Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Syria. More than 45,000 Mexicans overstayed their visa, according to the DHS records, and thousands more from El Salvador, Ecuador, Venezuela and China. The visas are granted for “business or pleasure” and the foreigners come via sea or air port of entry. For nearly a decade a number of federal audits have offered the alarming figures associated with visa overstays, including one released back in 2011 that estimates half of the nation’s illegal immigrants entered legally with visas.

This month’s DHS IG report exposes the disturbing reality that the U.S. government has done nothing to prevent another terrorist attack by dangerous elements that remain in the country with an expired visa. Many fall through the cracks because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS agency responsible for the task, must piece together information from dozens of systems and databases that aren’t reliable. The problem is so out of control that ICE must depend on often sketchy data provided by third parties such as commercial carrier passenger lists that often provide false visitor departure and arrival information. “Such false departure information resulted in [Enforcement and Removal Operations] officers closing visa overstay investigations of dangerous individuals, such as suspected criminals, who were actually still in the United States and could pose a threat to national security,” according to the DHS IG report. “For example, [a deportation] officer stated that a suspect under investigation was listed as having left the country, but had given his ticket to a family member and was still residing in the United States.”

Here are the overall figures that illustrate how bad the problem is; of more than half a million visa overstays identified by the DHS watchdog, a mere 3,402 were caught by federal authorities. It gets better. The various unreliable databases that ICE uses also provided inaccurate information on the 0.4% that got busted, according to the report. “In some cases, the individuals arrested had been reported in DHS systems as having already left the United States,” the report states. “Because this information was not recorded, ICE personnel were unable to provide an exact number when asked during our audit.”

In 2015, the U.S. issued nearly 11 million visas and, though only a small percentage overstay, they pose serious national security risks, the watchdog found. As an example, the report mentions the 9/11 hijackers who overstayed their visa. “This prompted the 9/11 Commission to call for the government to ensure that all visitors to the United States are tracked on entry and exit,” DHS investigators remind. Instead, there is a backlog of 1.2 million expired visa cases, the report says.


Jerry Brown: California Taxpayers are ‘Freeloaders’

May 19, 2017

Joel B. Pollak


Source …..

California Governor Jerry Brown referred to taxpayers as “freeloaders” last week for objecting to his new gas tax and car fee hikes.

“The freeloaders — I’ve had enough of them … They have a president that doesn’t tell the truth and they’re following suit,” he said. Brown was speaking in Orange County, defending State Assembly newcomer Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who is facing a recall effort after voting for Brown’s new transportation taxes in April.

The new tax raises existing gas taxes — already among the highest in the nation — by 12 cents per gallon, with higher taxes on diesel, and slaps car owners with higher annual registration fees. Critics have pointed out that the burden of the tax falls most heavily on middle-class Californians.

The Orange County Register, which covered Brown’s remarks, adds that Brown is sparing no effort to keep Newman in office. “He’ll have whatever he needs,” the Register quotes the governor as saying.

Kira Davis, commenting at RedState, remarks:

The 1,000,000 citizens in Los Angeles county alone who collect food stamps provided by taxpayers are not freeloaders. The millions of illegal immigrants being harbored in California’s sanctuary cities to the cost of taxpayers are not freeloaders. Illegal immigrants being provided “free” legal help by the state on the backs of taxpayers are not freeloaders. The bloodsuckers in the Sacramento legislature who get paid $178 a day in per diem funds on top of their bloated salaries just for walking in the door to their job every day are not freeloaders.

No, you – the burdened, law-abiding taxpayer are the freeloader for simply asking the government of California be more fiscally responsible with the money they already have instead of stealing more of your money without your consent to pay for programs that are already funded but have been raided for pet projects and personal enrichment.

Brown’s comments on taxpayers are not the first time he has shown intolerance to people struggling under California’s tax and regulatory burdens. In 2014, commenting on Toyota’s departure from California to Texas, said: “We’ve got a few problems, we have lots of little burdens and regulations and taxes. But smart people figure out how to make it.”


Six Facts We Learned from the Sally Yates Hearing

May 17, 2017

Kristina Wong


Source …..

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified last week in Congress. While the overarching media narrative focused on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s potential compromise by Russia, here are other important facts we learned:

1. Yates reviewed classified documents in which Flynn was “unmasked.” 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper whether they had ever reviewed classified documents where Trump, his associates, or members of Congress had been “unmasked” — or identified in intelligence intercepts — and whether they shared the information with anyone else.

Yates replied that she had reviewed such documents, and said: “In the course of the Flynn matter, I had discussions with other members of the intel community.”

This is important because it confirms that Flynn — or another Trump associate — was indeed unmasked, and that there should be an electronic trail showing who requested the unmasking and why.

While unmasking is not illegal, leaking classified information to the media is illegal. Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on December 29 would later be leaked to the Washington Post.

Clapper said the number of people that can request unmasking of American citizens is “fairly limited, because it’s normally fairly high level officials.”

Yates also said “oftentimes we receive intelligence reports where the name of the American citizen is already unmasked, and it’s unmasked by the intel agency because, not based on anybody’s request, but because the name of that citizen is essential.”

However, she could not say whether that happened in Flynn’s case, and either way, there should be a trail showing whether Flynn’s name was requested to be unmasked or not.

2. Some DOJ, FBI, and intelligence officials knew about Flynn’s conversation with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Yates and Clapper denied leaking Flynn’s call to the Washington Post, but they provided some clues as to who knew the intimate details about the call.

Yates said leading up to her meeting with White House counsel Don McGahn on January 26, Flynn’s conversation “was a topic of a whole lot of discussion, in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

Yates said she, Clapper, then-FBI Director James Comey, and then-CIA Director John Brennan all knew and debated going to the White House.

But she also said she “absolutely” consulted with career officials at the DOJ’s national security division, who were “conversant” on the details.

Yates also said she brought then-head of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, Mary B. McCord, with her to the meeting with McGahn to discuss Flynn. McCord would later announce her resignation in April.

All this is important in finding out who was aware of the details of Flynn’s conversation, particularly between December 29 and January 12, when Flynn’s conversation was first leaked to the Post. The Post attributed the leak to “a senior U.S. government official.”

Another Post article, with more details, on Flynn’s conversation published on Feb. 9, citing “nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls.”

3. Officials weighed informing the White House about Flynn against the impact it would have on the FBI’s Russia investigation.

Yates said in notifying the White House of Flynn’s conversation, officials had to balance a variety of interests.

“We were balancing this though, against the FBI’s investigation, as you would always do, and take into account the investigating agency’s desires and concerns about how a notification might impact that ongoing investigation,” she said.

This fact is important for two reasons.

One, this means that Kislyak and/or Flynn’s communications on December 29 were considered a part of the FBI’s investigation on Russia and any coordination between the Trump campaign. Trump had tweeted on March 4 that he found out his transition team was being surveilled by the Obama administration. It turns out he was right.

Two, it means that Yates and others would decide the value of squealing on Flynn outweighed the value of secretly collecting more intelligence on him. That could mean there was no other good evidence on Flynn, or that they had already collected enough. Whatever the evidence, it was not included in the intelligence community’s January 5 assessment for the White House.

According to a February 16 Washington Post article, Yates, Clapper, Brennan and Comey debated informing the White House on the last day of the Obama administration on January 19, and only Comey had argued it could interfere with the bureau’s ongoing investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Yates said once the FBI interviewed Flynn on January 24, “there was no longer a concern about an impact on an investigation.” A February 14 New York Times article said Flynn was “grilled” about the phone during the interview, according to “current and former” government officials.

4. Nothing had risen to the level of evidence by the time James Clapper left office in January 20.

Clapper said in March that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

During last week’s hearing, he added a huge caveat — that he did not know about an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation into whether there was collusion.

But Clapper said any evidence from that investigation was apparently not sufficient to include in their assessment on January 5, when three intelligence agencies issued a statement that Russian President Vladimir Putin had interfered with the U.S. elections against Clinton.

“The evidence, if there was any, didn’t reach the evidentiary bar in terms of the level of confidence that we were striving for in that intelligence community assessment,” he said.

Thus, even though there was an investigation he did not know about, it did not provide good enough evidence to be included in any assessment that he would have known about.

Clapper also later told Grassley that he had no reason to believe that any agency withheld any relevant information from him.

And he said there was also not enough evidence of a Trump business interest in Russia to put into the intelligence community’s assessment, by the time he left in January.

“It wasn’t enough to put into the report?” Graham asked.

“That’s correct,” Clapper responded.

5. The intelligence community could not corroborate the Trump dossier.

Clapper also said the dossier — produced by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and paid for by anti-Trump and pro-Clinton donors, could not be corroborated.

“We couldn’t corroborate the sourcing, particularly the second — third-order sources,” Clapper said.

The dossier claimed wild and unproven claims about Trump conducting sexual acts with prostitutes.

The dossier was reportedly used as the basis of a FISA warrant on former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page, and as the “roadmap” for the FBI’s investigation on Trump.

6. Clapper revealed that he requested the unmasking of another Trump associate — besides Flynn.

Clapper revealed that he had requested the unmasking of both a Trump associate and a member of Congress at least once each. He also said he didn’t know who unmasked Flynn, meaning he had unmasked a different Trump associate.

Since Clapper had left office on January 20, this means the Trump associate he had requested the unmasking for was a Trump campaign or transition team official, again confirming Trump’s assertion that Trump Tower was being surveilled.

Clapper did not say who he unmasked or why, just that his focus was on the “foreign target.”

He also revealed that 1,934 Americans had their names unmasked during surveillance of foreign targets in 2016.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he has been told by two reporters that his name had been unmasked or searched for by the Obama administration, and he’s been told by one other senator that he has been surveilled, too.

Graham told MSNBC after the hearing: “What did I learn? I learned that apparently there was an unmasking of a Trump campaign operative and maybe a member of Congress during the 2016 election, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard of that.”


Massachusetts Attorney General says it’s okay for mainstream media to publish death threats against “anti-vaxxers”

May 17, 2017


Source …..

The mainstream media has just been given a green light by the Massachusetts Attorney General to openly publish death threats against so-called “anti-vaxxers” (a derogatory term which means anyone who questions the sanity of injecting children with mercury, a brain-damaging heavy metal and known neurotoxin). Proof of this is found in the letter shown below.

BACKGROUND: Following the Boston Herald’s call for anti-vaxxers to be “hanged to death”, Natural News issued an urgent action item for readers and fans to report the Boston Herald to law enforcement authorities. A wave of complaints hit the Boston FBI, Boston Police and the Massachusetts Attorney General, requesting criminal investigations into the Boston Herald for its unabashed call for anti-vaxxers to be executed in the same way black slaves were once lynched in America.

In response, as shown in the letter below, the Massachusetts Attorney General has declared it will not investigate the matter.

Of course, if you or I openly declared we were going to murder a journalist who worked at the Boston Herald, the investigation would be swift and highly publicized, but when the Boston Herald calls for the murder of people like us, the state government says that’s not worth investigating, and no other mainstream media outlet covers the story.

In other words, the Massachusetts government has just told anti-vaxxers that you must now take up your own self-defense against journo-terrorists, since the “authorities” in government refuse to apply the law to those who work at the Boston Herald. Your lives are now in danger. You are being targeted by the Boston Herald and any number of psychopaths who may be motivated by the Herald’s call for mass murder. The government has now declared it will do nothing to stop the calls for murder by “journalists” as long as they are targeting people who oppose toxic vaccine ingredients.

It’s time to start publishing the home addresses of journo-terrorists who escalate violence against concerned parents and independent scientists

This all explains why I plan to publish the home addresses of the journo-terrorists working at the Boston Herald, in order to warn local Bostonians that they might be living next to murderous, sociopathic mental health miscreants who are a danger to society. Since the Massachusetts government refuses to take any action to protect the public from these dangerous psychopaths, it’s obvious that we must take action to protect ourselves. The right to self-defense, after all, is one of the most sacred rights we possess.

Our non-profit division is also launching the public education site where journo-terrorists who deny that vaccines harm children will be named and shamed, providing a permanent record of their crimes against children and humanity.

Be sure to join the rally this Thursday at the Boston Herald offices to demand a halt to their racist hate speech against moms and dads. This Natural News article has all the details of the rally. It will be held at 11 am on Thursday, May 18th, at 70 Fargo Street, Boston, MA 02110.

Massachusetts AG official says it’s okay to publish death threats against anti-vaxxers

The bigger picture in all this is better explained by Jeffery Jaxen, who writes about what’s at stake in this article, reprinted here with credit:

Beta testing, sometimes referred to user acceptance testing, is defined in the computer world as a technique in which hardware is subjected to small trial environment before full implementation. Establishment media outlets and government health agencies have ramped up the pressure and targeting of families, parents, and children over the past few years. Vaccination, once a choice after careful deliberation over the dangers by way of full informed consent, has been painted as an authoritarian demand by the state. The removal of full informed consent, public health debates and medical choice has been superseded to make way for the ever-expanding profit margins of pharmaceutical corporations.

Media outlets now regularly attack and dehumanize anyone who does not subscribe to what can only be described as a religious-like dogma of the failing tenets of the medical-industrial complex. Humanity has witnessed governments and their mouthpieces, often with corporate collusion, attempt to divide and conquer their populations for the purpose of greater control and, in extreme cases, extermination. The slippery slope practice of painting innocent subgroups of society, often used as scapegoats for failed government policy, as a danger to the collective is well-documented and extremely dangerous.

To pave the way for California Senate Bill 277, marinated in Big Pharma money and political corruption, The LA Times ran the article titled “Rich, educated and stupid parents are driving the vaccination crisis.” Such a headline now seems tame in today’s accepted media landscape ever since the Boston Herald labeled public debate about questionable health practices and parents talking about their children’s vaccine injuries “a hanging offense.”

The public backlash was swift after the story was broke here. Bigger alternative media outlets then ran with the story activating their networks and followers. A call to action was initiated to contact the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office and file a Civil Rights complaint. The results of that complaint have now come full circle. Paralegal Bethany Brown, officially replying to the civil rights complaint on behalf of the office of the Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey writes:

Please be advised that after reviewing your complaint, the Civil Rights Division has decided not to further investigate or intervene in this matter at this time.

Whether the Boston Herald’s call for violence was a beta test in the next step of a greater program of parental and community persecution or simply the result of one sad, misinformed writer, the message signals a dangerous new low for US media.

Regardless of the corporate media’s waning influence, funded to the tune of an estimated $5.4 billion in Big Pharma ad revenue, an exponentially growing number of people are now questioning and discussing the long-documented dangers of vaccination. Just recently, a pilot study has entered the discussion adding even further credibility to parents, medical professionals and researchers who have been warning about the dangers of the ever-increasing US vaccine schedule. The study titled Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year-old U.S. children‘ showed the following results for vaccinated children:

  • 4.2-fold increase in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder  (ADHD);
  • 5.2-fold increase in Learning Disability;
  • 3.7-fold increase in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (NDD) of any type;
  • Preterm birth and vaccination was associated with 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD.

The study also showed that vaccinated children were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the risk of eczema was increased 2.9 fold.

What will come of the future of the Boston Herald and the rest of the US corporate media as their integrity and audience is lost remains to be seen. The US population, and many globally, are awakening to the idea that the practice of government agencies and establishment healthcare forcing dangerous medical products and procedures on families and children is a losing battle. In the search for truth and balanced reporting, without omitting uncomfortable facts, the people are educating themselves and their communities. The move away from establishment mouthpieces, Big Pharma-funded reporting and their ‘official stories’ is here.


Health food stores raided for CBDs, police ridiculously claim they’re narcotics

May 17, 2017


Source …..

It seems that cops are now cracking down on the sale of CBD oil, even if it’s made from hemp. Two health food stores in Bismarck, North Dakota were subjected to police raids this past week — for selling CBD oil. Officers from the police force’s Narcotics division “visited” the Bisman Food Co-op and Terry’s Health Products on May 11, both of which sell the hemp-based product.

According to a spokesperson from Terry’s, they demanded that the owners remove the CBD oil products from their stores’ shelves, but did not confiscate the items — and in fact, the narcotics officers actually purchased some of the oil for testing. The shop owners were reportedly told to stop selling CBD products until the police were able to wrap up their investigation.  Officers will be testing their hemp-derived CBD oil for the presence of two key cannabinoids, THC and CBD.

As it turns out, officials in North Dakota declared that CBD would become a Schedule I drug under the state’s own laws in December. Though the spokesperson from Terry’s Health Products says that they were unaware of the change, they and the owners of Bisman Food Co-op will face stiff penalties if their products test positive for either cannabinoid. They could be charged with Distributing a Schedule I drug, which is a Class B felony and carries up to 20 years in prison. Like the federal variant, the Schedule I drug classification in North Dakota refers to drugs with a “high potential for abuse and addiction” as well as “no medical value.” These are adjectives that many people would say do not accurately describe CBD.

CBD oils have been flying off the shelves, according to both stores. Terry’s has been selling CBD oil for the last three years without any issues like this, and the Bisman Food Co-op has been selling a CBD product for the last year with no problems.

In a statement released after the raids, the Bisman Food Co-op said, “The Bisman Food Co-op is fully committed to providing to our members and customers a variety of health and wellness products that are safe, consistent with the co-op’s guiding principles, and compliant with all state and federal laws.”

But is CBD is being wrongfully accused? Is the plant devoid of medical value — and is it addictive? Or at the very least, more addictive than opioids — a class of federally-approved drugs that have wreaked havoc on our country?

CBD: Is it actually dangerous?

A recent paper published in the journal Neurotherapeutics notes that CBD has a low potential for abuse and addiction, due to the fact that it does not provide much stimulation to the “rewards” center of the human brain. Furthermore, the researchers say that current data has shown that CBD is a viable treatment for addiction. Even Fox News has reported on the fact that research shows that cannabinoids from the cannabis plant may be a successful way to help put an end to the opioid epidemic plaguing the United States, and help individuals who are struggling with addiction to overcome their disease. A small pilot study led by Dr. Yasmin Hurd has shown that CBD can help to reduce cravings in heroin users, and also helps to reduce their anxiety. Cannabidiol, also known as “CBD,” could be an essential compound for this purpose, because unlike THC, CBD does not have psychoactive effects — which means it has an inherently low potential for abuse.

It’s really rather sad: Cannabinoids and the cannabis plant continue to be crucified while seriously addictive substances such as opioids are practically given carte blanche. Even scientists are beginning to realize that while the two substances may offer a similar array of medical uses (such as pain relief), one is far more dangerous than the other.

Newsflash: It’s not CBD that’s dangerous. Dr. Yasmin Hurd, Ward-Coleman Chair of Translational Neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and Director of the Center for Addictive Disorders for the Mount Sinai Behavioral Health System, has studied this topic immensely. As Hurd states, “If you look at both drugs and where their receptors are, opioids are much more dangerous in part because of the potential for overdose. The opioid receptors are very abundant in the brainstem area that regulates our respiration so they shut down the breathing center if opioid doses are high.”



Kris Kobach: Democrats Already Attacking Election Integrity Commission, ‘What Are They Afraid We’ll Find?’

May 16, 2017

John Hayward


Source …..

Vice-Chairman Kris Kobach of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, who is also Secretary of State for Kansas, joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Monday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss voter fraud and border security.

“The commission is going to be about a dozen people, bipartisan, five of them current or former Secretaries of State,” Kobach said. “What it’s going to do is take a nationwide look at the problem of voter fraud. There’s a lot of debate around the subject of voter fraud, and as someone who has been Secretary of State in a state where we introduced photo ID as well as proof of citizenship, and security for mail-in ballots – which is oftentimes a source of fraud or a type of fraud that occurs – we’re going to look at it from a nationwide perspective.”

“I’ve amassed a lot of data at the state level in Kansas, but there really hasn’t ever been an effort by a federal entity to measure the statistics and the facts nationwide and see what the numbers look like,” he noted.

Kobach recalled that Kansas and other states asked the Obama administration to provide lists of aliens on legal visas to check against voter rolls, so they could weed out ineligible voters.

“The federal government has consistently said no, under the Obama administration. Well, this commission will have the authority to maybe look at a couple of states and say, ‘okay, let’s check how many people who are registered voters in those states are also known aliens, non-citizens according to the federal government,” he said. “That’s going to be exciting, something never done before, and it will give us some sense of what the real numbers are of this problem.”

“The Social Security Administration has what’s called the ‘master death file.’ It sounds like some sort of starship from Star Wars, but the master death file is a list of people who have died. The Social Security Administration wants to track that, and of course keep Social Security Numbers rotating to people who are living. That’s a database that can be used to bump against some of the voter rolls,” he added.

“Things like that, where we can just take some hard statistics and gather some numbers – and we’ll also be looking at anecdotal things and case-by-case prosecutions for voter fraud. It’s a big job,” Kobach said.

Marlow anticipated that Kobach would encounter obstructionism from Democrats despite the bipartisan nature of his commission, because as he starkly put it, “We know that the Democrats would like to have lax voter laws and voter rules, because that allows them to cheat.”

Kobach said that after the commission was announced last week, “we did have people like Chuck Schumer coming out immediately and criticize me, and say that the commission is a waste of time.”

“My response is, ‘Senator, what are you afraid of? What are you afraid the commission is going to find, that you would attack the vice-chairman of the commission ad hominem, and that you don’t want the commission to look at the evidence?’” he said.

“Look, if he’s right and voter fraud is virtually non-existent in America, then the commission will find virtually nothing, and we will make his case for him,” Kobach argued. “I think it’s kind of curious how some of the leadership of the Democrat Party – and that includes Tom Perez – have criticized the commission, when I would think if they really are interested in the facts, they would say ‘Hey, great the commission will prove to us that voter fraud doesn’t exist.’ So yeah, it’s been interesting.”

Kobach said the Trump administration is “doing well” on immigration and border security so far, in his estimation.

“I think the executive orders are what needed to be done. The vetting of people coming from parts of the world where terrorism is rampant, where ISIS or al-Qaeda control territory, is very problematic. I give them high marks for that,” he said.

“The other thing is, they’ve sent a very clear message to the ICE agents that hey, we’re taking the rope off your hands, we’re untying your hands and letting you do your job,” he continued. “Just by doing that, just by seeing ICE agents more active and out on the field, back doing what they were supposed to do, that has sent a message to the smugglers and to the illegal aliens coming in that there is a new sheriff in town.”

“That’s why you’re seeing the border crossing numbers plummeting,” Kobach stated. “I think that’s great. It does show what those of us who have studied and worked in the immigration field know, and that is that if you make a slight change of policy in Washington, you’ll get an immediate reaction on the border.”

“For example, whenever the open-borders crowd starts talking about an amnesty – and under President Obama, they had a president who was welcoming an amnesty – then immediately border crossings surged,” he recalled. “The word gets down south of the border very quickly, and people surge in, because they want to be in the country so that they can claim they were eligible for the amnesty when it happens. Similarly, the opposite is true too. If a more aggressive enforcement begins, word gets across that hey, this is going to be tougher. The price of a coyote smuggling you in is going to double or triple. That affects behavior.”

“Those are some good marks for the administration. I think there is more they could be doing, and hopefully they will be doing it in the near future,” he said.

Marlow cited some of the more vicious attacks on Kobach’s character, and asked what it was like to endure such calumny merely because he insists on border security and clean elections.

“It’s not good at all,” Kobach replied. “They’ve been dragging my name through the mud for years now. I’ve become calloused to it, and it doesn’t bother me that much. But you know, it bothers my wife, my family. You don’t want your kids to read that.”

“It’s so false,” he continued. “When someone is in a debate, and they don’t have any arguments left, oftentimes on the Left they resort to ad hominem remarks. They just attack you as a person. They call you a racist, they call you a vote suppressor. They just come up with these stupid names. That’s because they don’t have any actual arguments left. I’m not surprised any more by it. It doesn’t bother me, but it’s rather tedious, and I certainly don’t like my family seeing it.”

Kobach anticipated his commission completing its work within a year, and said he would continue to work on ballot integrity and border security in the meantime.

“We should see some interesting data, whatever it is, that the commission is able to present to the country. I continue to work in the area of illegal immigration as a litigator, so I’ll be working there. I think you’re going to see a lot of things happening, especially on sanctuary cities,” he said.

“California has got this bill that has passed one house, it’s in the other house, to create a sanctuary state, which is just extraordinary. I think you could potentially see litigation on that. You could see litigation on a whole bunch of things,” he anticipated.

“I’ll keep fighting to keep our voter rolls clean, and to help this commission find whatever there is to find on the subject nationally. The fight to secure our borders is something that has to be done both within the administration and without. States need to help. States like Texas made a great effort to enlist state and local law enforcement, just like Arizona did a few years ago. I’ll be continuing to push for that,” Kobach promised.


Seven-time Deported Criminal Illegal Alien Arrested Again

May 16, 2017

Ryan Saavedra


Source …..

A Mexican National with a long criminal rap sheet was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in Michigan.

Federal prosecutors charged Rafael Munoz-Molina on May 10 with illegal reentry into the United States after seven prior deportations, MLive reported.

Munoz-Molina was leaving a motel in Bay County when ICE officers pulled him over. Munoz-Molina openly identified himself to the officers and “freely admitted to not having any legal status or documentation to reside or remained in the United States,” Hector Rivera, a deportation officer with ICE, wrote in an affidavit.

Munoz-Molina has a long criminal history inside the United States dating back to 1995. His first conviction took place in Bay County where he was found guilty of malicious destruction of property valued at under $200. His second conviction, second-degree retail fraud, came later that year in a Saginaw County, Michigan.

Two years later, in July 1997, Munoz-Molina received his third conviction – this time in Midland County, Michigan – of domestic violence and received a three-month prison sentence followed by probation and fines before being deported back to Mexico in October 1997.

One week after being deported to Mexico he was caught back in the United States, this time in Texas. He was convicted of illegal reentry and sentenced to 75 days in jail before being deported back to Mexico in March 1998.

Munoz-Molina illegally reentered the United States and was convicted of impaired driving in June 2002, back where his criminal history started in Bay County, Michigan. After serving a six-month sentence, ICE officers deported him in August 2003.

After his third deportation, Munoz-Molina reappeared in Bay County where he received another impaired driving conviction in 2005. This time he only had to serve four days in jail, followed by a shorter probation period than he previously received for the same offense. Munoz-Molina remained in the U.S. for years following his probation period and was not deported again until January 2014.

The following month, he was caught again in Texas where he was convicted of illegal reentry and was immediately deported again in March 2014.

Munoz-Molina reappeared in Michigan in 2015 only to end up behind bars for six months after his third conviction for illegal reentry and was then sent back to Mexico for a sixth time in February 2016.

Two weeks after being deported back to Mexico, Munoz-Molina was picked up by Border Patrol in Arizona and again was immediately deported.

His next court date in Michigan is pending.


Hawaii Lawyer: Trump Exec Order Violates 1st Amendment Because Honor Killings Are Islamic

May 16, 2017

Raheem Kassam


Source …..

The lawyer representing the State of Hawaii in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today has stated the collection of data with regards honor killings should be removed from President Trump’s Executive Order in order to “pass constitutional muster”.

In his arguments, Neal Katyal stated today that the collection of such data as outlined by the Executive Order 13780 contravenes the Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”.

In doing so, Katyal appears to be making the case that honor killings — murder committed in the name of restoring a family’s dignity following discouraged behaviour within fundamentalist homes — is in itself Islamic.

It is an argument often made by anti-Islam campaigners, but to hear such arguments made by the political left might surprise some, especially when honor killings are also found — though to a lesser extent — in other religious groups like the Sikh community.

“What does [the President] have to do to issue an executive order that, in your view, might pass constitutional muster?” asked Judge Paez of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this afternoon.

Katyal responded at length, stating: “I think there’s two paths that the President could take in order to pass constitutional muster.

“One is the way that our founders thought, Article 1 Section 8 which, as Congress in the driver’s seat with respect to immigration, passes a statute. as Justice Alito said, when Congress passes a statute it’s much less likely to discriminate. It is 535 people versus one, which is why his Mandel point is so problematic. That’s number one. 

“Second thing the president could do, or the kinds of things or some of the kinds, removing some of things that the district court found led an objective observer to say that this this discriminates. 

“One example would be, what Judge Hawkins said, disavowing formally all the stuff said before. But that’s not it. He could do a lot of things. For example, I’m going to throw out some examples. I‘m not trying to micro manage the President. He could say, like President Bush did, right after September 11th, the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. that’s not what Islam is about. Islam is peace. Instead, we get, quote, Islam hates us. I think Islam hates us. 

“I think he could point to changed circumstances from December 2015, when Congress debated the exact same evidence that the President relies on in his executive order and say, you know, we actually need more than just denying people entry without a visa, which is what Congress required. You need to do more than that. 

“It could eliminate the text, which refers to honor killings. There’s a bunch of different things that could be done. And our fundamental point to you is that presidents don’t run into Establishment Clause problems and the reason for that is this is a very limited, you know, in a really unusual case in which you have these public statements by the President. if you affirm the district court there’s not a thing that any president has done in our lifetime that would be unconstitutional”.

For Katyal to advance such an argument may also be detrimental to the public understanding of honor killings in the United States.

Executive Order 13780 mentions honor killings only once, in the section (11) entitled “Transparency and Data Collection”, where it states:

To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information…

…(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called ‘‘honor killings,’’ in the United States by foreign nationals…

Katyal’s other argument — that President Trump should go to great lengths to fawn over Islam as one of his predecessors, President George W. Bush did — could even be said, under Hawaii’s apparent broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause, to be a violation in and of itself.


%d bloggers like this: