~ Featuring ~  
Criminals Take Advantage of Sanctuary
Policies for Illegal Immigrants
Hans von Spakovsky

The Trump Admin is Planning Mass Video Proceedings for Immigrants in
Tents on the Border
by Debbie Nathan } ~ A Trump administration program that banishes asylum-seekers to perilous Mexican border cities could expand exponentially — and disastrously... with a new plan to hold mass video proceedings in tents along the border. Officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, the Trump program has already pushed over 15,000 migrants seeking asylum out of the U.S. and into areas just across the international line, many of which the State Department advises Americans to limit travel to because they are so crime-ridden. Many immigrant rights advocates call the program the “Migrant Persecution Protocols.”Until this year, immigrants who requested asylum in the U.S. were either put in immigration detention centers or released to family and friends in the U.S. to pursue their claims. But in late January, the MPP was instituted in three U.S. cities: El Paso, Texas; Calexico, California; and San Diego. People assigned to the MPP in those cities are sent across the border to Juarez, Mexicali, and Tijuana. There they must wait, often for months, to return for their immigration hearings in the U.S. — before being sent back to Mexico to await their next hearing. In Mexico, few of these immigrants have been able to work legally, and many are homeless. As stateless people with no family or friends in Mexico, they are sitting ducks for severe violence. During five weeks of attending court hearings and interviewing Central American and Cuban immigrants in Juarez, The Intercept heard numerous accounts of adults and children being robbed, kidnapped for ransom, raped, and threatened with murder. Most migrants stuck in Mexico under the MPP say they are deeply fearful about being there. Yet the Department of Homeland Security appears ready to vastly expand the MPP, not just with more crowded courts, but with mass video hearings held in tents presided over by distant judges...
Dem 2020 task: Convince 
voters to overlook economy
by Byron York } ~ On Oct. 28, 1980, in the final debate of his race against Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan asked a question that has come to define presidential politics... "Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision," Reagan said. "I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago?" The answer for most voters was no, and Reagan won the election with 489 electoral votes to Carter's 49. The question, or some close variation of it, has popped up many times since. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" asked scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton in 1992.(In 1996, seeking reelection, scumbag/liar-Clinton declared, "We are better off than we were four years ago." "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" asked Barack scumbag/liar-nObama in 2008. It worked for scumbag/liar-Clinton, and it worked for scumbag/liar-nObama. Now, the question is whether it will work for Donald Trump. The president's Democratic 2020 challengers face a daunting problem: Unless there is a serious economic downturn, the answer to the are-you-better-off question will work in the president's favor, not his opponent's. The unemployment rate, 3.7%, is the lowest it has been in half a century. June's employment report — 224,000 new jobs — brought another strong performance. The economy is growing at a slightly better than 3% annual rate. Most importantly, in the context of an election, wages have grown 3.1% over last year with low inflation, improvement that has not been seen in years. Any analysis of the 2020 election should include the warning that things could change. But barring a significant reversal, in 2020 most voters would likely answer yes when asked if they are better off than they were four years ago. And then they would vote to reelect the incumbent president...
3 Ignorant Myths About 
The Betsy Ross Flag, Dispelled
By Jane Hampton Cook } ~ Nike’s decision to pull shoes depicting the Betsy Ross flag from the market because it might offend someone shows a gross lack of knowledge... about the flag’s true meaning and origin. It’s time to dispel the myths about this flag and set the record straight. The Betsy Ross flag is not a colonial flag. It is the first official flag of the United States of America. The Betsy Ross flag is the first flag of the United States of America, not of Britain’s American colonies. Independence Day, July 4, 1776, marks the day that the Declaration of Independence changed the American colonies into states. While submitting to the authority of the Continental Congress, the new states began to set up new state governments and write new state constitutions. At the same time, Gen. George Washington knew that his army and the American people needed a new flag to symbolize this change from a government based on royalty to one based on representation. Betsy Ross, a known upholsterer in Philadelphia, sewed the first flag, according to sworn affidavits given by her descendants. When Congress officially issued this flag on June 14, 1777, they emphasized the symbolism of the thirteen new states, not the thirteen colonies. “Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white: that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation,” declared the Journal of the Continental Congress on June 14, 1777. The first flag of the United States was not about slavery. It was about unity. The key word in Congress’s description of this flag is “union.” The meaning of the first flag of the United States is unity. What could be more plain and simple than that? What could be more worthy and noble than a flag with a literal meaning of union? Nike rejected a flag that means unity. Ross sewed the 13 stars in a circle, uniting them into one. A circle symbolizes equality because no one star is more prominent or important than another. This meant that no state was more important than another state. The same is true today. Declaring the first flag of the United States as offensive denigrates the African Americans who fought for this flag...
I Stand With Rush: Time To Take Action
By Lloyd Marcus } ~ Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh passionately responded to a column which warned of a growing anti-Americanism in our country... Rush told his millions of listeners, “We are facing it right now, not 10 years from now.” Rush said, do not misinterpret his concern to mean he has lost hope and given up on saving America. He said to view his rant as a clarion call for all who love our country to take action. Rush explained that he is not encouraging violence, but to simply start saying, “No!” In essence, Rush is saying to stop passively permitting spoiled brat anti-American leftists to trash our flag, pull down historical monuments, and to demonize patriotism and our Christian founding. Stop allowing leftists to poison the minds of our youths with hatred for their country. I share Rush's frustration, particularly as it relates to my fellow black Americans. Due to their criminal activities involving illegal drugs, two beloved black millennial relatives are in the hospital. One was severely beaten and the other is fighting for his life. Both young men live in Baltimore, which is one of the cities controlled by Democrats, plagued with record levels of black-on-black crime. Frustratingly, both young relatives are infected with the sicko-Colin Kaepernick, Democratic, fake news media bogus negative view of America. They believe being black in this awful racist country justifies them doing whatever is necessary, legal or illegal, to survive. Both young men were raised with Christian principles and values. If my dad, Dr. Rev. Lloyd E. Marcus was still alive, they would be too ashamed to look him in the eye. While I hold my relatives accountable for their bad behavior, it is inarguable that allowing Democrats, public education, entertainment, and social media to fill our youths' heads with hatred for their country has reaped devastating consequences. Unfortunately, several members of my family are infected with left-wing anti-Americanism and hatred for Republicans and Trump. At a family gathering, I was tempted to stand in the middle of the room and proclaim, “Do y'all know Democrats want to kill babies, especially black babies, even after they are born? Do y'all know blacks are experiencing historic financial prosperity thanks to President Trump?...
US and Iran: What is NOT a Smart Policy
by Majid Rafizadeh } ~ There are policy analysts, scholars or politicians I have come across who say, "I hope Trump fails." One area particularly focused on is the president's policy on Iran... The statement "I hope Trump fails," however, is not a sound strategy. Those who hold this view would apparently rather see the country fail than see President Trump do well. Rooting for President Trump to fail in his policy with Iran means calling for empowering and emboldening a theocratic regime that has consistently  threatened "Death to America" -- with nukes, presumably, if it had the capability, which it is busy acquiring. The core revolutionary pillars of this Iranian government are anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. This country, which some people say they would like to see prevail over President Trump, has also been named, several times, the leading executioner of children. It has killed thousands of Americans, including in the 2001 World Trade Center attacks, and has committed -- and continues to commit -- the most unspeakable human rights  abuses, including flogging and executing minors. Iran has  massacred its own people and is ranked the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and first in the world for executing people per capita. That documentation is just a limited accounting of the horrors it has committed; the list goes on. Those who dislike President Trump, or those who are Iran's apologists and lobbyists use different narratives to try to turn the public against the president on his Iran policy. One common narrative is that if Iran is treated with kindness, concessions and respect, then it will respond by moderating its behavior. It will stop intervening in other nations, supporting terror groups, and inciting anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. History, however, has dispassionately revealed to us that this argument is a total fantasy, pioneered by President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama and his Secretary of State, hanoi-John Kerry. During scumbag/liar-nObama's eight-year administration, scumbag/liar-nObama and hanoi-Kerry made unprecedented concessions, fully respected the Iranian leaders, lifted sanctions, offered them a fast-track to legitimate deliverable nuclear capability and showered the regime with $150 billion -- all in an attempt to appease the ruling mullahs. How did that turn out?...  
Criminals Take Advantage of Sanctuary Policies for
Illegal Immigrants

Hans von Spakovsky

When signing Washington state’s sanctuary law, Gov. Jay Inslee — now a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination — self-righteously proclaimed that his state would “not be complicit in the Trump administration’s depraved efforts to break up hard-working immigrant and refugee families.”

What is “depraved” is Inslee’s complicity in codifying a reckless policy that has led to the murder, robbery and assault of Washington residents.

In like manner, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, also a Democrat, is unapologetic about her state’s sanctuary policy. It also prevents local law enforcement officials from honoring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers and bars them from notifying the feds when illegal immigrants are arrested for committing local crimes.

In mid-June, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a list of criminal illegal immigrants who took advantage of the sanctuary policies of both states. After their jailers ignored ICE detainer requests, these immigrants committed assault, rape and murder across the Pacific Northwest, authorities said.

Take the case of Rosalio Ramos-Ramos, a Honduran with multiple prior criminal convictions who was lodged in a city jail in Washington. He was released despite an ICE detainer. He remained free until he was arrested again, this time accused of murder.

Another Honduran, Elder Carceres-Coello, had a long string of prior criminal convictions going back to 2005. Yet he, too, was also released despite an ICE detainer. He is back in jail now, charged with murder and robbery.

Illegal immigrant Jorge Luis Romero-Arriaga was being held in jail on child rape charges. Rather than hand him over to ICE agents, Washington authorities released him. He wound up behind bars again, convicted on multiple assault charges. Only then was Romero-Arriaga finally deported.

None of these murders, robberies or assaults would have occurred if these illegal immigrants had been handed over to ICE so they could be removed from the country.

Need more proof of the folly of such policies?

The wife of Christian Octavio Parra would be alive today except for the Washington state’s irresponsible sanctuary policy. Octavio Parra was being held in a county jail, but local authorities refused to notify ICE when they released him or to honor an ICE detainer warrant. He went home and shot and killed his estranged wife before committing suicide.

The Department of Homeland Security report outlines similarly tragic — and entirely preventable — incidents in Oregon due to the state’s dangerous sanctuary policy. For example, Martin Gallo-Gallardo, a Mexican citizen illegally in the U.S., was released by Oregon authorities who ignored an ICE detainer warrant. Gallo-Gallardo is now back in jail, accused of murdering his wife. What do you think her family thinks about the state’s politically correct sanctuary policy?

It really is hard to understand how politicians think that, as ICE says, making it “more difficult to remove dangerous criminal aliens” and trying “to stop the cooperation of local officials and business partners” does anything other than “harm the very communities whose welfare they have sworn to protect.”

The crimes committed by illegal immigrants are not isolated incidents either. A July 2018 Government Accountability Office report noted that the 197,000 criminal illegal immigrants incarcerated in federal prisons during fiscal year 2011 through 2016 had been arrested about 1.4 million times and accused of approximately 2 million offenses — about 10 crimes apiece.

The 533,000 criminal illegal immigrants incarcerated in state and local prisons during fiscal years 2010 through 2015 (for which the federal government reimburses local governments through the Justice Department’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program) were arrested about 3.5 million times and accused of approximately 5.5 million offenses.

And more criminal illegal immigrants are coming. An investigation by ICE found that 660 members of an 8,000-strong October 2018 illegal immigrant caravan “already had run-ins with the law in the U.S.,” including convictions for assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and murder.

ICE also identified 860 out of 3,300 individuals in a January 2019 caravan who had “criminal histories in the U.S., including 30 convicted of sexual offenses, 20 convicted of assault and aggravated assault and one convicted of attempted murder.”

The Department of Homeland Security report makes for sad reading indeed. It is rife with stories of criminals brought to justice too late to keep them from harming additional innocents.

In each instance, had state and local authorities simply complied with ICE detainer requests, these illegal immigrants would have been removed from the community and their subsequent crime sprees prevented. That they were freed to continue wreaking mayhem is a direct result of sanctuary policies.

Where was the sanctuary for their victims?  ~The Patriot Post  

Views: 9


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage,


YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’


© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service