Month: January 2019

When establishment media believes the narrative they push on the public, they can get themselves into trouble. As an example of this, it appears CNN may have thought they had a slam dunk of a story to bash President Donald Trump over — with furloughed workers as guests.

They were wrong. And just how wrong they were became clear in an interview that went in a very different direction from what CNN seems to have expected.

CNN’s Victor Blackwell introduced the topic of the partial government shutdown and border wall funding by referencing a statement from Trump. In it, Trump said he had support from furloughed workers.

“Many of those workers have said to me and communicated, ‘stay out until you get the funding for the wall,’” Trump said, according to ABC News. “These federal workers want the wall. The only one that doesn’t want the wall are the Democrats.”

Blackwell asked his guests, federal law enforcement officers Charles and Jill Gilbert, if Trump actually had their support. Both had continued to work without pay during the partial government shutdown.

TRENDING: They Did It Again! CNN Caught Radically Editing Trump Clip To Make Him Look a Liar

Their response appears to have left Blackwell a bit stumped. As he continued to question them, and even tried to set them up to answer a certain way, they didn’t play along — which left Blackwell silenced at one point and struggling for words.

Charles made it clear that Trump has their support. He also explained why Trump had it and why they felt the wall was worth the sacrifice.

“If its going to defend our country and keep illegals out, keep people from hurting my children, (people) that don’t belong here, yes, I’m all for the wall,’ he said. He added that he would support another shutdown in three weeks if it comes to that.

The couple did not blame Trump, but did point at Congress for the trouble. Jill used the example of their prison work to explain what Congress needs to do.

“We don’t stop what we’re doing in a prison. Our daily operations continue to go regardless if we like someone or not,” she said.

“We still have to have a working relationship with that person. If we don’t like them, we can tell ’em we don’t like them, but we’re still gonna walk out that front door with them, regardless of what happens in that prison.”

The couple did express some frustration over being used as pawns by Congress. They said they hoped that federal workers would one day be exempted from being used by warring parties of elected officials.

Jill seemed certain that the shutdown would be reinstated. She said without an exemption, federal workers going without pay will continue to be a talking point held over their head that gives the warring parties power to continue to war with each other.

RELATED: Self-Absorbed Jim Acosta Gets Brand New Gig To Bash President Trump

The Democrats have three weeks to come to a resolution with Republicans. And such a resolution will need to include wall funding or the partial government shutdown will be reinstated.

If the Democrats continue to resist approving the funding, which they have done previously, federal workers will again be held hostage by partisan politics. And despite the narrative being run by establishment media, it appears people like the Gilberts, even when used as pawns by Congress, will continue to support the president in his quest to keep America safe.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

The four GOP Senators picked for the border security conference committee are not leaders in the high-risk immigration issue, ensuring that Senate Majority Leader and the president will decide the next stage of the immigraiton and border wall controversy.

The GOP Senators on the border security panel are Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito, North Dakota’s Sen. John Hoeven, and Missouri’s Sen. Roy Blunt, a source told Breitbart News. The four members each have earned a B rating from the mainstream NumbersUSA advocacy group, which favors a reduction in legal immigration.

The panel of four Republicans and three Democrats is slated to negotiate a bipartisan response by February 15 to the President’s demand for $5.7 billion in border wall funds.

The GOP side of the panel was picked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and notably does not include the leading members of the GOP’s pro-amnesty cheap labor caucus, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. James Lankford, Sen. Thom Tillis, or Sen. Cory Gardner.

The three Democrats include two of their experts on the immigration issue, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy. The third Democratic member is Montana Sen. Jon Tester.

Durbin recognizes the high-risk unpredictability of the migration issue, partly because he was one of the leaders in the disastrous “Gang of Eight” cheap labor amnesty push. That push helped the Democrats lose nine Senate seats in November 2014, and also helped Donald Trump destroy Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign in 2016.

The Senate panel is expected to play a central — but not decisive — role in the next three weeks as President Donald Trump and his advisers — plus McConnell — decide whether they should keep raising the price they are willing to pay hostile Democrats to win a small extension of the border wall

For example, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, has reportedly suggested the President will offer a plan to provide amnesty to roughly 1.8 million young migrants. The Kushner plan would include the 800,000 registered DACA migrants — but it would also tempt many migrants to cross the border in the hope of getting an amnesty during Trump’s reelection campaign.

McClatchy news says Jared Kushner is offering an amnesty for 1.8M+ migrants. The amnesty would give green cards to at least 800K unregistered migrants, so would invite a border rush by people claiming eligibility. The rush would come before 2020 election. https://t.co/c996eC6Oyd

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) January 25, 2019

GOP-affiliated business lobbies want amnesties partly because they would get a new influx of extra consumers and workers. But the business lobbyists also know that it Trump endorses amnesties during the next three weeks, he would surrender his political leverage to push for his “Four Pillars” reforms in 2020.

The business groups are also pushing hard for Kushner and Trump to approve a huge new inflow of visa workers, via the H-1B or OPT programs. The extra visa workers would please Wall Street and many donors — but would also alienate many of the suburban professionals and young graduates whom Trump needs to win in 2020.

Tech Billionaires urge fast-track green cards for 400,000 contract visa-workers – and many more later. Just guessing here, but maybe most Americans prefer fewer visa workers for biz & higher salaries for their families? https://t.co/yXhMswXOXK

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) December 8, 2018

The business groups are using a series of industry-funded polls to win support in the White House. But those polls hide other polls of deep emotional opposition among Trump’s supporters and among swing voters to any border policy which increases migration, raises crime or lower wages.

The President’s allies among the immigration reform groups also do not want the Senate panel or White House officials to push for a large amnesty in exchange for a short wall. Instead, the groups generally prefer a reformist policy that will curb migration — with the aid of better barriers on the border — and so help push up voters’ wages before Trump’s reelection campaign in 2020.

“One thing we’ve always said is that a fixation on the wall is myopic,” said R.J. Haumann, policy director at NumersUSA. “Barriers are part of the solution, but there are bigger and better solutions to these problems,” he said, adding that Trump’s reelection will be aided when wages rise.

Another option is for the president to declare a national emergency — without granting any concessions to Democrats or business — and then order his agencies to build additional miles of a wall using unspent funds. The option would ensure a backlash in Washington D.C. but is likely to survive a court challenge. 

Trump Has Legal Authority to Declare Border Emergency to Build the Wall https://t.co/TQi1Kpekvs via @BreitbartNews

— Ken Klukowski (@kenklukowski) January 25, 2019

The President’s agency appointees are also pushing ahead with a variety of solutions, including the construction of better fences and the rollout of regulatory changes.

The most important regulatory change is the new “Remain in Mexico” policy, which may allow the president to shrink the catch-and-release practices at the border and also deeply damage the cartel’s labor-trafficking business. “That is a very big deal — hopefully, it does not get struck down in the courts,” said Haumann. 

This ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy could be more effective in blocking job-seeking ‘asylum’ migrants than the border well – if it survives progressives’ legal attacks, congressional caveats, and does not cause too many problems for Mexican officials. https://t.co/POJ9S8sfy4

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) January 25, 2019

Progressive opponents of the Remain in Mexico policy say it is creating “a legal wall” against the economic migrants who claim asylum to activate the catch-and-release loopholes in the border wall.

Those pro-migration claims echo the Democrats’ visceral opposition to any border wall, which is increasingly being described by no-deal progressives as an unacceptable symbol of GOP racism towards non-white migrants.

That no-deal stance leaves the Democrats vulnerable in 2020 to a presidential campaign which portrays them as more concerned about migrants than about Americans’ wallets and neighborhoods.

Nationwide, the bipartisan establishment’s economic policy of using legal migration to boost economic growth shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor. That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor of blue-collar and white-collar employees.

The cheap labor policy widens wealth gaps, reduces high tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.

Immigration also steers investment and wealth away from towns in Heartland states because coastal investors can more easily hire and supervise the large immigrant populations who prefer to live in coastal cities. In turn, that investment flow drives up coastal real estate prices, pricing poor U.S. whites, Latinos, and blacks out of prosperous cities, such as Berkeley and Oakland.

Angel Mom Mary Ann Mendoza says Americans who have been victimized by illegal aliens are living proof that United States needs a wall along the southern border to stop illegal immigration.

On Friday, President Trump announced he would reopen the federal government by signing a three-week funding bill that does not include money for his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Mendoza — who co-founded Angel Families after her 32-year-old son Brandon Mendoza was killed by a drunk illegal alien who was driving the wrong way down a highway in Mesa, Arizona — told Breitbart News in an exclusive statement that it is Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who are “holding Americans hostage” by refusing to support any measures to curb mass illegal immigration.

“Angel Families, Border Patrol, DHS, ranchers and all other citizens affected by illegal alien crime are the proof [Pelosi and Schumer] need,” Mendoza said.

The latest polling from Harvard/Harris finds that more than 80 percent of American voters either strongly or somewhat support a crackdown on illegal alien crime, including 96 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of Democrats, and 79 percent of swing voters.

@SpeakerPelosi guess who’s credit rating is NON EXISTENT? EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN KILLED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN IN OUR COUNTRY….4000+ annually lose their lives and credit rating. They are DEAD because of NO BORDER SECURITY! BRANDON ‘S LIFE MATTERS pic.twitter.com/9k90lcc6cl

— ❌Angel Mom Mary Ann Mendoza ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@mamendoza480) January 24, 2019

“If hundreds of thousands of American citizens affected annually by illegal alien crime isn’t enough to make every man, woman, and young adult take notice and listen to what could happen to any of them in the blink of an eye — and make our elected officials stand up and protect us over illegal aliens illegally present in our country — I don’t know what else to do,” Mendoza continued.

Mendoza said the president’s plan to form a negotiating committee to strike a deal that he hopes will at least partially fund construction of a border wall will reveal, starkly, who elected Democrats represent.

“Denial is not the answer,” Mendoza said. “Step up and acknowledge our hardships, loss, and lack of protection. If Democrats refuse to negotiate during this temporary fix, Americans will now know for certain who they fight fo, and it isn’t you and I.”

Illegal immigration at the southern border, for December 2018, has increased 81 percent compared to this same month the year before. Additionally, there were about 22,000 illegal alien minors who crossed the southern border last month.

Meanwhile, drug overdoses in 2017 killed an unprecedented 72,287 U.S. residents, nearly three times the number of individuals killed by global terrorism. Nearly 50,000 of those deadly overdoses were caused by either heroin or fentanyl.

Last year, alone, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency arrested nearly 2,000 convicted and suspected illegal alien killers, leaving behind countless American and legal immigrant victims.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

Let’s travel to the future, about 18 months from today, to a presidential debate between President Trump and whichever candidate the DNC finally throws its gold bricks behind.  Two alternate timelines exist: one where Trump has built the wall and an unlikely one where he has not.

In the first, Democrats will be crushed.  President Trump will remind them that they told the American people that the wall is “ineffective” and “expensive.”  But crime has fallen; so have substance abuse-related deaths.  Illegal immigration is manageable for the first time in close to a century.  This Democratic nominee might argue that Trump failed to make Mexico pay for the wall.  His retort?  The U.S. has now officially negotiated lucrative trade agreements with our southern neighbor that have paid for the wall tenfold.  He may even mention the massive burden that illegal immigration costs Americans each year has been lifted.

In the second future, where somehow the wall hasn’t been built, the Democrat will hound Trump and ask him why he did not deliver on his campaign promise.  Besides their own party’s obstruction of the process, they will suggest that the president is not able to get things done with bipartisan support.  They could even suggest that is they, if elected to replace President Trump, who will really get the job of a border wall done.  Based on the Democratic support for border barriers in the past, it’s within the realm of possibility that they will readopt the platform issue since it’s still the number-one issue voters care about.

The Democrats are against the wall because they know it will work.  Their concern isn’t altruistic and about the morality of the wall; it is merely a point to set up and argue during the next election.  If they really believed that a wall would not work, they wouldn’t stand in the way and let President Trump fail when it didn’t deliver what we all know it will.  Lower crime.  Lower drug deaths.  Lower illegal immigration.  And lower taxpayer burden when government funds have been spent combating these problems.  They’re fighting it because they cannot survive if the president, and America, succeeds.

The Democratic Party hasn’t just suddenly developed a sense of fiscal responsibility when it claims that the wall is too expensive.  They wrote the book on wild spending, like sex ed for prostitutes or speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s wild $100K tab of in-flight drinks and dinners.

When Democrats claim to be against the barriers because of their concern for DACA recipients and then simultaneously shoot down an offer for their stability, it should be a sign.  Then, when they claim that their opposition to the wall comes from some moral high ground, all Americans should be able to see through this poor argument, considering the high walls around their own homes.

On Friday afternoon, President Trump reopened the government with a continuing resolution for until mid-February.  He reiterated his determination to follow through on his options to secure the southern border.  To show that he is merciful, he is extending an olive branch to the House and Senate Democrats by giving them a chance fulfill their promise to negotiate when the partial government shutdown had ended.

However, having promptly reneged on their own promises, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer held a press conference shortly after the President’s Rose Garden address, and Pelosi said, “I’ve been clear about the wall,” at which Schumer helpfully clarified: “Democrats don’t want the wall.“

Democrats can’t agree over any other of their own platform issues from health care to raising minimum wage, so why are they so carefully organized around opposition of the wall?  Because a wall would secure President Trump’s re-election in 2020.  It is the last item to be checked off from a long list of promises that have been satisfied during President Trump’s first term.

In this current reality, the wall will be built.  President Trump hasn’t let the liberal media about a lost battle stop him from winning the war.  He has issued an ultimatum to Congress: secure $5.7B for the wall, or he will issue an emergency proclamation, which has already located $7 billion in various funds.  Either way, it’s happening.

What we will witness now is either the Democratic Party supporting a bill with the funding as requested and when the next election roles around, they can at least pretend they helped procure the benefits that have followed.  Or they will continue to fight against it with even nastier means than we’ve witnessed yet.

Don’t anticipate Democrats doing the smart thing and backpedaling on their fear-mongering and divisive politics now to save face as they work toward a secure border.  Instead, prepare for an even more desperate display of anti-American rhetoric and bald-faced denials of the problems we face from unfettered illegal immigration.  Democratic leaders care about only the votes, not the voters.

Image: Lorie Schall via Flickr.

Let’s travel to the future, about 18 months from today, to a presidential debate between President Trump and whichever candidate the DNC finally throws its gold bricks behind.  Two alternate timelines exist: one where Trump has built the wall and an unlikely one where he has not.

In the first, Democrats will be crushed.  President Trump will remind them that they told the American people that the wall is “ineffective” and “expensive.”  But crime has fallen; so have substance abuse-related deaths.  Illegal immigration is manageable for the first time in close to a century.  This Democratic nominee might argue that Trump failed to make Mexico pay for the wall.  His retort?  The U.S. has now officially negotiated lucrative trade agreements with our southern neighbor that have paid for the wall tenfold.  He may even mention the massive burden that illegal immigration costs Americans each year has been lifted.

In the second future, where somehow the wall hasn’t been built, the Democrat will hound Trump and ask him why he did not deliver on his campaign promise.  Besides their own party’s obstruction of the process, they will suggest that the president is not able to get things done with bipartisan support.  They could even suggest that is they, if elected to replace President Trump, who will really get the job of a border wall done.  Based on the Democratic support for border barriers in the past, it’s within the realm of possibility that they will readopt the platform issue since it’s still the number-one issue voters care about.

The Democrats are against the wall because they know it will work.  Their concern isn’t altruistic and about the morality of the wall; it is merely a point to set up and argue during the next election.  If they really believed that a wall would not work, they wouldn’t stand in the way and let President Trump fail when it didn’t deliver what we all know it will.  Lower crime.  Lower drug deaths.  Lower illegal immigration.  And lower taxpayer burden when government funds have been spent combating these problems.  They’re fighting it because they cannot survive if the president, and America, succeeds.

The Democratic Party hasn’t just suddenly developed a sense of fiscal responsibility when it claims that the wall is too expensive.  They wrote the book on wild spending, like sex ed for prostitutes or speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s wild $100K tab of in-flight drinks and dinners.

When Democrats claim to be against the barriers because of their concern for DACA recipients and then simultaneously shoot down an offer for their stability, it should be a sign.  Then, when they claim that their opposition to the wall comes from some moral high ground, all Americans should be able to see through this poor argument, considering the high walls around their own homes.

On Friday afternoon, President Trump reopened the government with a continuing resolution for until mid-February.  He reiterated his determination to follow through on his options to secure the southern border.  To show that he is merciful, he is extending an olive branch to the House and Senate Democrats by giving them a chance fulfill their promise to negotiate when the partial government shutdown had ended.

However, having promptly reneged on their own promises, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer held a press conference shortly after the President’s Rose Garden address, and Pelosi said, “I’ve been clear about the wall,” at which Schumer helpfully clarified: “Democrats don’t want the wall.“

Democrats can’t agree over any other of their own platform issues from health care to raising minimum wage, so why are they so carefully organized around opposition of the wall?  Because a wall would secure President Trump’s re-election in 2020.  It is the last item to be checked off from a long list of promises that have been satisfied during President Trump’s first term.

In this current reality, the wall will be built.  President Trump hasn’t let the liberal media about a lost battle stop him from winning the war.  He has issued an ultimatum to Congress: secure $5.7B for the wall, or he will issue an emergency proclamation, which has already located $7 billion in various funds.  Either way, it’s happening.

What we will witness now is either the Democratic Party supporting a bill with the funding as requested and when the next election roles around, they can at least pretend they helped procure the benefits that have followed.  Or they will continue to fight against it with even nastier means than we’ve witnessed yet.

Don’t anticipate Democrats doing the smart thing and backpedaling on their fear-mongering and divisive politics now to save face as they work toward a secure border.  Instead, prepare for an even more desperate display of anti-American rhetoric and bald-faced denials of the problems we face from unfettered illegal immigration.  Democratic leaders care about only the votes, not the voters.

Image: Lorie Schall via Flickr.

Pro-life Christians of all stripes were appalled when earlier this week the New York state legislature made abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy.  In stark contrast to their sadness and consternation, however, the government of New York celebrated like never before: at the tip of Manhattan, the top of the Freedom Tower was lit up pink; and about 25 miles up the Hudson River, the brand new Tappan Zee Bridge (officially known as “Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge,” that trophy Governor Andrew Cuomo built with taxpayer money to honor his former-governor father) was lit up in a most spectacular way, also in splashy, in-your-face pink.  The statement was clear: all women in the state — nay, all women across America — should be cheering and celebrating this monumental advancement for women the world over.

But why did this so-called great achievement in human rights take so long?  Couldn’t the state government have struck this blow for women much, much earlier?  The answer lies in the fact that, in the election this past fall, enough Republicans were voted out of office to make a solid majority of Democrats who could pass any legislation they dang well pleased.  And so they dang well did.

Pundit John Zmirak stated in a radio interview recently that if you want to see what this country will look like once the Democrats regain total control in Washington, just watch what happens now in New York state.

Can this trend be stopped?

In New York, as well as in most every other state, there are certainly enough Catholics and others who identify as Christians who could vote their conscience and say “no” to the legalization and/or celebrated-approval of destructive practices — and not just abortion.  The short list includes gay marriage (so-called); allowing boys who think they are girls the privilege of showering with girls; discriminating against people because they’re too “white” (aka, acceptable racism).

Today, there are those in office (and those seeking office) who unabashedly champion abortion rights and LGBT rights, the progressive litmus test for all Democrats.  However, Republicans can vary in their viewpoints; the braver ones push back firmly against these issues and publicly live out their faith (think Vice President Mike Pence).

So, the question is, with such a large percentage of people declaring themselves “Christian” everywhere across America, why have they not risen up and voted against these progressive Democrats who are touting obviously non-Christian values and legislation?  Are these Catholics and Christians that dumb?  Is their allegiance to the “old” Democrat Party (the one that actually stood for Christian values many decades ago) stronger than their love of the God of the Bible and His holy law?

It seems that the only voting bloc that can stop this takeover of America is the Catholic/Christian one.  However, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

My bet is that, come election day in 2020, Catholics and others who call themselves Christian will head in droves to the voting booth to cast their votes once again for the Democrats.  I mean, what’s their alternative?  Apparently, in their minds, how can anyone expect them to vote for those “Evil Republicans”?

Pro-life Christians of all stripes were appalled when earlier this week the New York state legislature made abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy.  In stark contrast to their sadness and consternation, however, the government of New York celebrated like never before: at the tip of Manhattan, the top of the Freedom Tower was lit up pink; and about 25 miles up the Hudson River, the brand new Tappan Zee Bridge (officially known as “Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge,” that trophy Governor Andrew Cuomo built with taxpayer money to honor his former-governor father) was lit up in a most spectacular way, also in splashy, in-your-face pink.  The statement was clear: all women in the state — nay, all women across America — should be cheering and celebrating this monumental advancement for women the world over.

But why did this so-called great achievement in human rights take so long?  Couldn’t the state government have struck this blow for women much, much earlier?  The answer lies in the fact that, in the election this past fall, enough Republicans were voted out of office to make a solid majority of Democrats who could pass any legislation they dang well pleased.  And so they dang well did.

Pundit John Zmirak stated in a radio interview recently that if you want to see what this country will look like once the Democrats regain total control in Washington, just watch what happens now in New York state.

Can this trend be stopped?

In New York, as well as in most every other state, there are certainly enough Catholics and others who identify as Christians who could vote their conscience and say “no” to the legalization and/or celebrated-approval of destructive practices — and not just abortion.  The short list includes gay marriage (so-called); allowing boys who think they are girls the privilege of showering with girls; discriminating against people because they’re too “white” (aka, acceptable racism).

Today, there are those in office (and those seeking office) who unabashedly champion abortion rights and LGBT rights, the progressive litmus test for all Democrats.  However, Republicans can vary in their viewpoints; the braver ones push back firmly against these issues and publicly live out their faith (think Vice President Mike Pence).

So, the question is, with such a large percentage of people declaring themselves “Christian” everywhere across America, why have they not risen up and voted against these progressive Democrats who are touting obviously non-Christian values and legislation?  Are these Catholics and Christians that dumb?  Is their allegiance to the “old” Democrat Party (the one that actually stood for Christian values many decades ago) stronger than their love of the God of the Bible and His holy law?

It seems that the only voting bloc that can stop this takeover of America is the Catholic/Christian one.  However, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

My bet is that, come election day in 2020, Catholics and others who call themselves Christian will head in droves to the voting booth to cast their votes once again for the Democrats.  I mean, what’s their alternative?  Apparently, in their minds, how can anyone expect them to vote for those “Evil Republicans”?

After news broke of the pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone’s home Friday morning in Florida by twenty-nine heavily-armed agents in nineteen vehicles, lights flashing, CNN serendipitously on hand to film the raid, millions of us realized once and for all that we are no longer living in the America we knew and loved.

Those same millions of us have known for over two years that the Mueller “probe” is a huge and well orchestrated cover-up.  There are now at least two books, Gregg Jarrett’s and Dan Bongino’s, and well researched investigative articles that prove this beyond doubt.

Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein not to investigate Trump collusion with Russia.  The principals all knew that was not remotely true.  He was appointed to conceal and obliterate the volumes of evidence of crimes committed by Hillary Clinton; her campaign; and a group of higher-ups in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, all of whom were involved in a scheme to prevent Trump from being elected.  All of them have lied under oath and before Congress.  Mueller himself was involved in the Clinton scheme to sell 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia.

All of these felons are walking free; their homes are not being raided in the wee small hours of the morning, but their crimes are far more serious than anything Roger Stone or Paul Manafort might have committed.

That such an aggressive show of force could be visited upon a non-violent person accused of alleged verbal crimes is truly frightening.  That so many in the media are celebrating the use of such a Gestapo tactic is horrifying.  Suddenly, it is catastrophically clear that America is no longer a constitutional republic, a nation of laws and justice.  An unelected, tangential officer of the DOJ has for two years abused his position of power to destroy many lives in the cruelest of ways with impunity.  No one is stopping him and his band of legal bullies. 

As for those who for all these many months have continued to maintain that Mueller is a “straight shooter,” a man of “impeccable credentials,” none of which is true, now is the time to reconsider your wishful thinking.  The man is every bit the scoundrel others have reported him to be for years.  Read Sidney Powell’s book, License to Lie.  It is a primer on the abuse of power long exercised by Mueller and his pit bull, Andrew Weismann.  These thugs revel in destroying people, and they keep getting away with it.  Someone must stop them.

American must be restored to its former glory as an example to the world of the sanctity of the rule of law.  The fact that so many powerful people on the left despise the president cannot mean that the Constitution no longer applies to the citizens of this nation.

Where is the investigation into the leaks to the media from Mueller’s office?  Who tipped CNN about the raid on Stone’s home?  What is acting DOJ head Whittaker doing?  Twiddling his thumbs?  How could the FBI head, Christopher Wray, have allowed this raid to happen?

There are so many crimes being committed here, one on top of another.  Is Whittaker a Mueller-Rosenstein plant, too?  Are we to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain“?  Just who is the man behind the curtain?  Is Mueller the Wizard, or is someone else pulling the strings?  Is Mueller more powerful than the president?  It seems that he is.  He has morphed into an American version of Lavrentiy Beria.

May Mueller one day be tried for his crimes.  May he be found guilty for the lives he has ruined, many of them long before he became special counsel for the current investigation.  This man is a menace.

“What makes a king out of a slave?  Courage!” said the Cowardly Lion.  Trump is a courageous man; he needs to have the courage to put an end to this charade that is nothing but an engine of vile and corrupt hatred speeding toward his presidency with malicious intent.  Mueller and his henchmen are violating every tenet of the Constitution and thousands of laws on the books since its drafting.  They are out of control.  That raid on Stone’s home was the last straw.  They don’t use that much firepower for known gang members who they know are armed and dangerous.

For whom was this bit of theater performed?  The left media certainly loved it.  The ladies of The View, the dumbest show on television, were ecstatic, as were all the anchors and guests on CNN and MSNBC.

Does Mueller actually think the left needs any more ammunition to validate his faux investigation?  This entire enterprise, from the Clinton-DNC plot to ruin Trump to the Mueller “Russia collusion” probe is all of a piece and is the most monstrous political scandal in American history.  We are definitely not over the rainbow; as a nation, we are in the throes of self-destruction. 

After news broke of the pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone’s home Friday morning in Florida by twenty-nine heavily-armed agents in nineteen vehicles, lights flashing, CNN serendipitously on hand to film the raid, millions of us realized once and for all that we are no longer living in the America we knew and loved.

Those same millions of us have known for over two years that the Mueller “probe” is a huge and well orchestrated cover-up.  There are now at least two books, Gregg Jarrett’s and Dan Bongino’s, and well researched investigative articles that prove this beyond doubt.

Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein not to investigate Trump collusion with Russia.  The principals all knew that was not remotely true.  He was appointed to conceal and obliterate the volumes of evidence of crimes committed by Hillary Clinton; her campaign; and a group of higher-ups in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, all of whom were involved in a scheme to prevent Trump from being elected.  All of them have lied under oath and before Congress.  Mueller himself was involved in the Clinton scheme to sell 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia.

All of these felons are walking free; their homes are not being raided in the wee small hours of the morning, but their crimes are far more serious than anything Roger Stone or Paul Manafort might have committed.

That such an aggressive show of force could be visited upon a non-violent person accused of alleged verbal crimes is truly frightening.  That so many in the media are celebrating the use of such a Gestapo tactic is horrifying.  Suddenly, it is catastrophically clear that America is no longer a constitutional republic, a nation of laws and justice.  An unelected, tangential officer of the DOJ has for two years abused his position of power to destroy many lives in the cruelest of ways with impunity.  No one is stopping him and his band of legal bullies. 

As for those who for all these many months have continued to maintain that Mueller is a “straight shooter,” a man of “impeccable credentials,” none of which is true, now is the time to reconsider your wishful thinking.  The man is every bit the scoundrel others have reported him to be for years.  Read Sidney Powell’s book, License to Lie.  It is a primer on the abuse of power long exercised by Mueller and his pit bull, Andrew Weismann.  These thugs revel in destroying people, and they keep getting away with it.  Someone must stop them.

American must be restored to its former glory as an example to the world of the sanctity of the rule of law.  The fact that so many powerful people on the left despise the president cannot mean that the Constitution no longer applies to the citizens of this nation.

Where is the investigation into the leaks to the media from Mueller’s office?  Who tipped CNN about the raid on Stone’s home?  What is acting DOJ head Whittaker doing?  Twiddling his thumbs?  How could the FBI head, Christopher Wray, have allowed this raid to happen?

There are so many crimes being committed here, one on top of another.  Is Whittaker a Mueller-Rosenstein plant, too?  Are we to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain“?  Just who is the man behind the curtain?  Is Mueller the Wizard, or is someone else pulling the strings?  Is Mueller more powerful than the president?  It seems that he is.  He has morphed into an American version of Lavrentiy Beria.

May Mueller one day be tried for his crimes.  May he be found guilty for the lives he has ruined, many of them long before he became special counsel for the current investigation.  This man is a menace.

“What makes a king out of a slave?  Courage!” said the Cowardly Lion.  Trump is a courageous man; he needs to have the courage to put an end to this charade that is nothing but an engine of vile and corrupt hatred speeding toward his presidency with malicious intent.  Mueller and his henchmen are violating every tenet of the Constitution and thousands of laws on the books since its drafting.  They are out of control.  That raid on Stone’s home was the last straw.  They don’t use that much firepower for known gang members who they know are armed and dangerous.

For whom was this bit of theater performed?  The left media certainly loved it.  The ladies of The View, the dumbest show on television, were ecstatic, as were all the anchors and guests on CNN and MSNBC.

Does Mueller actually think the left needs any more ammunition to validate his faux investigation?  This entire enterprise, from the Clinton-DNC plot to ruin Trump to the Mueller “Russia collusion” probe is all of a piece and is the most monstrous political scandal in American history.  We are definitely not over the rainbow; as a nation, we are in the throes of self-destruction. 

In the early part of 2018, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that nearly $5 million in funding to the New York State Companion Animal Capital Fund would invest in “critical improvements projects at New York shelters.”  Cuomo’s abortion activist lieutenant governor, Kathy Hochul, had this to say about the effort to make rescue animals more comfortable: “The test of whether a society is civilized and just is how it cares for its most vulnerable.”

In a study, entitled “Who seeks abortion at or after 20 weeks?,” published by the Guttmacher Foundation’s journal, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, authors Foster and Kimport cite data that indicates that “fetal anomaly [and] life endangerment” are not the reasons women have late-term abortions.  Even still, one year after preaching about civilized society caring for its most vulnerable, Kathy Hochul smiled as Andrew Cuomo signed an abortion bill that allows babies to be aborted at nine months, by non-physicians, for any reason, and denies victims who survive the initial procedure the right to warmth, hydration, and oxygen.

At the happy event, the governor who grants sanctuary to MS-13, and bans the use of elephants for entertainment, seemed proud to amend New York State’s public health law and deny those unlucky enough to be conceived in the state of New York both sanctuary and medical assistance.  In keeping with Barack Obama, who once said caring for a child born alive in a botched abortion undermines the “original intent” to produce a dead baby, Cuomo’s law repealed section 4164 of New York’s Public Health Law, which mandated medical care for any child born alive during an abortion.

New York’s governor was so enthusiastic about contributing to the nation’s 3,000 abortions a day that he celebrated by lighting up the spot where, on September 11, 2001, 3,000 Americans experienced agony similar to what an unborn child experiences while being burned, crushed, and dismembered alive in the womb.

Governor Cuomo transformed the site of mass murder in 2001 into a monument honoring mass murder in 2019.  The only thing missing from the festivities was a tablescape designed by Cuomo’s live-in girlfriend, Sandra Lee, to mark the event.

Just last year, the man who joyfully facilitated subjecting unborn babies to extreme pain and then celebrated doing so with raucous applause followed by a light show announced legislation to ensure “pets … be treated in a safe, responsible and humane manner,” because “four-legged friends… are family members” in need of protection.

New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law, §§ 359, 362, which Governor Cuomo enforces, states that it is illegal to “torture, overwork, beat or fail to provide necessary food or drink to an animal.”  It is also illegal in New York to “carry an animal in a vehicle or vessel in a cruel way, or purposely leave objects that could injure animals (like glass, nails, or pieces of metal) in the street.

To protect animals other than humans from cruelty, Agriculture and Markets Law §353-a requires “New York make it a felony to kill or seriously injure a pet … on purpose and in a particularly sadistic manner, or with the intention of causing extreme pain.”  That means that animals are shielded from torture and extreme pain, while instating the Reproductive Health Act grants New York women the right to kill and “seriously injure” an unborn child in a “particularly sadistic manner.”

Eighteenth-century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham argued on behalf of legal protection for animals this way: “[t]he question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

In the state of New York, every year, thousands of non-sentient, non-verbal victims of abortion suffer through treatment legislators protect animals from experiencing, such as scorching; mutilation; and, in one scenario, jabbing through a beating heart with a needle containing a fatal dose of potassium chloride. 

In another scenario, thanks to Andrew Cuomo, while protecting baby chicks and rabbits from harm, defenseless children, destined for abortion but unfortunate enough to survive the first and second trimesters, can look forward to legally suffering through having their craniums crushed for easy removal from their mothers’ wombs. 

Try smashing in the skull of a dog or a cat in New York State, and Andrew Cuomo, Defender of Animals, will have the perpetrator hunted down, prosecuted, and convicted in a court of law.

It was Charles Darwin who once said: “The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.”

In an article entitled “Ensuring a stillborn: the ethics of fetal lethal injection in late abortion,” feminist and University of Kentucky philosophy professor Joan C. Callahan disagreed with Darwin’s premise.  In her reproductive ethics article, the author contended that abortion at any stage could be “defended because human fetuses are not persons and because religious commitments cannot be enforced in a pluralistic society.”

Andrew Cuomo must agree with Callahan’s extreme sentiment because his amended law now gives animal rights precedence over the rights of human beings.   To embrace the humanistic view that “human fetuses are not persons,” Cuomo must dismiss his nominal commitment to pro-life Catholicism and downgrade those made in God’s image and likeness to a status lower than the non-human “living creatures” Darwin encouraged all evolved species to love.

At the end of day, progressive Andrew Cuomo began his third term as New York’s governor with the words “We will make history, and New York will move forward, not by building a wall … but by building new bridges.”  On Election Day, little did New Yorkers know that besides safeguarding the lives of potential patrons of pet cemeteries, the “new bridges” Cuomo planned to build would cross rivers of innocent blood into graveyards full of dead babies.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.

Image: Pat Arnow via Flickr.

In the early part of 2018, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that nearly $5 million in funding to the New York State Companion Animal Capital Fund would invest in “critical improvements projects at New York shelters.”  Cuomo’s abortion activist lieutenant governor, Kathy Hochul, had this to say about the effort to make rescue animals more comfortable: “The test of whether a society is civilized and just is how it cares for its most vulnerable.”

In a study, entitled “Who seeks abortion at or after 20 weeks?,” published by the Guttmacher Foundation’s journal, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, authors Foster and Kimport cite data that indicates that “fetal anomaly [and] life endangerment” are not the reasons women have late-term abortions.  Even still, one year after preaching about civilized society caring for its most vulnerable, Kathy Hochul smiled as Andrew Cuomo signed an abortion bill that allows babies to be aborted at nine months, by non-physicians, for any reason, and denies victims who survive the initial procedure the right to warmth, hydration, and oxygen.

At the happy event, the governor who grants sanctuary to MS-13, and bans the use of elephants for entertainment, seemed proud to amend New York State’s public health law and deny those unlucky enough to be conceived in the state of New York both sanctuary and medical assistance.  In keeping with Barack Obama, who once said caring for a child born alive in a botched abortion undermines the “original intent” to produce a dead baby, Cuomo’s law repealed section 4164 of New York’s Public Health Law, which mandated medical care for any child born alive during an abortion.

New York’s governor was so enthusiastic about contributing to the nation’s 3,000 abortions a day that he celebrated by lighting up the spot where, on September 11, 2001, 3,000 Americans experienced agony similar to what an unborn child experiences while being burned, crushed, and dismembered alive in the womb.

Governor Cuomo transformed the site of mass murder in 2001 into a monument honoring mass murder in 2019.  The only thing missing from the festivities was a tablescape designed by Cuomo’s live-in girlfriend, Sandra Lee, to mark the event.

Just last year, the man who joyfully facilitated subjecting unborn babies to extreme pain and then celebrated doing so with raucous applause followed by a light show announced legislation to ensure “pets … be treated in a safe, responsible and humane manner,” because “four-legged friends… are family members” in need of protection.

New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law, §§ 359, 362, which Governor Cuomo enforces, states that it is illegal to “torture, overwork, beat or fail to provide necessary food or drink to an animal.”  It is also illegal in New York to “carry an animal in a vehicle or vessel in a cruel way, or purposely leave objects that could injure animals (like glass, nails, or pieces of metal) in the street.

To protect animals other than humans from cruelty, Agriculture and Markets Law §353-a requires “New York make it a felony to kill or seriously injure a pet … on purpose and in a particularly sadistic manner, or with the intention of causing extreme pain.”  That means that animals are shielded from torture and extreme pain, while instating the Reproductive Health Act grants New York women the right to kill and “seriously injure” an unborn child in a “particularly sadistic manner.”

Eighteenth-century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham argued on behalf of legal protection for animals this way: “[t]he question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

In the state of New York, every year, thousands of non-sentient, non-verbal victims of abortion suffer through treatment legislators protect animals from experiencing, such as scorching; mutilation; and, in one scenario, jabbing through a beating heart with a needle containing a fatal dose of potassium chloride. 

In another scenario, thanks to Andrew Cuomo, while protecting baby chicks and rabbits from harm, defenseless children, destined for abortion but unfortunate enough to survive the first and second trimesters, can look forward to legally suffering through having their craniums crushed for easy removal from their mothers’ wombs. 

Try smashing in the skull of a dog or a cat in New York State, and Andrew Cuomo, Defender of Animals, will have the perpetrator hunted down, prosecuted, and convicted in a court of law.

It was Charles Darwin who once said: “The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.”

In an article entitled “Ensuring a stillborn: the ethics of fetal lethal injection in late abortion,” feminist and University of Kentucky philosophy professor Joan C. Callahan disagreed with Darwin’s premise.  In her reproductive ethics article, the author contended that abortion at any stage could be “defended because human fetuses are not persons and because religious commitments cannot be enforced in a pluralistic society.”

Andrew Cuomo must agree with Callahan’s extreme sentiment because his amended law now gives animal rights precedence over the rights of human beings.   To embrace the humanistic view that “human fetuses are not persons,” Cuomo must dismiss his nominal commitment to pro-life Catholicism and downgrade those made in God’s image and likeness to a status lower than the non-human “living creatures” Darwin encouraged all evolved species to love.

At the end of day, progressive Andrew Cuomo began his third term as New York’s governor with the words “We will make history, and New York will move forward, not by building a wall … but by building new bridges.”  On Election Day, little did New Yorkers know that besides safeguarding the lives of potential patrons of pet cemeteries, the “new bridges” Cuomo planned to build would cross rivers of innocent blood into graveyards full of dead babies.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.

Image: Pat Arnow via Flickr.

It may be hard for some to believe, but the Democrats today are interchangeable with the left, because there are no longer any moderate Democrats.  And along with their journey away from the middle, the Democrats have become ever more illiberal in how they feel about their political opponents.  To disagree with the left has become heresy punishable by excommunication and often preceded by what has become their specialty, hatred accompanied by personal, political, and career destruction.

When Barack Obama became president with full control of both houses of Congress, the left was ecstatic.  Some were proud of their country for the first time, blissfully unaware that most Americans had always been proud of America.

It was clear to Democrats that citizens had finally agreed to give them the opportunity and power to realize their dream of a “fair” America of equal outcome with an unchecked government elite making all decisions for everybody in a socialist utopia where everyone can have everything they want, and no decisions or policies could ever be wrong and thus ever reviewable.

When voters began to realize that Obama wasn’t as moderate as he pretended to be to get elected, they began the eight-year trek away from the Democratic utopia.  First, Democrats lost the House, then the Senate, and 2016, they lost the presidency.

The left, which had become convinced they would never again be relegated to the minority, were not only surprised, they were outraged.  Who were these people to go against the “arc of history?”  This is “not who we are” they complained.

It can be said that Trump’s election was the point where the Democrats abandoned the deplorable bastards who stole Hillary Clinton’s presidency, but it had been coming for a long time.

When Barack Obama went on his worldwide apology tour, he wasn’t apologizing for America, he was apologizing for Americans.  To himself, He was America; and Americans were merely the evil people who refused to accept this higher truth.  It wasn’t America that cost him the House and the Senate, it was Americans who rejected the truth that his radical transformation of the United States of America was god’s plan.

Trump wasn’t the beginning, he was the last straw.  That’s what sanctuary cities, abolish ICE, open borders, DACA, amnesty, and a path to citizenship are all about.  These things are not a function of compassion for the poor paperless migrant searching for a better life — remember, Democrats were anti-illegal immigration when they thought illegals were a boon to business and increased profit.  These policies are nothing more than a means by which the left can switch out Americans for people who aren’t so depraved as to think they have a right to vote against them.

The left doesn’t stifle, bury, and ridicule conservative opinion in the media, Google searches, college campuses, and the public square because they won’t tolerate disagreement, they do it because they know that only they are on the side of all that is right and just and hence, any dissent is evil.  And all dissenters are malevolent.  It’s not a lack of tolerance, the left is tolerant of all good people, but since only evil people won’t agree with them, the beastly get what they deserve.

This is why it’s so easy for them to go to extremes to express their hatred for a Kavanaugh or a Covington kid, or lie and cheat to destroy a candidate Trump, or commit crimes to usurp his presidency, or investigate anyone ever involved with the man; these people are villainous, and hatred and extremism in the battle with evil is no vice. 

This is also why everything Trump does is labeled racist.  He won’t agree with them and do as he is told; he also refuses to be quiet and accept a beating as all deplorables should.  Instead, he tries to implement policies that he believes are good for all us loathsome Americans.  This makes everything he does malicious and obviates the need for them to look at what he says or supports on an individual basis – we are wicked, and he is wicked and therefore, everything he espouses or tries to accomplish is wicked as well.

Democrats don’t want to destroy America, they want to destroy us, and in particular, Donald Trump.  We deserve it for who we are.

Right now, they are in the process of replacing execrable Americans with people who they believe will be better for the country, for America.  Therefore, they can’t ever agree on funding for a wall — a wall would only make that harder. 

We should all beware of what they will do with us when replacement is no longer an option.  After all, we already know what they are capable of — they show us every day.

It may be hard for some to believe, but the Democrats today are interchangeable with the left, because there are no longer any moderate Democrats.  And along with their journey away from the middle, the Democrats have become ever more illiberal in how they feel about their political opponents.  To disagree with the left has become heresy punishable by excommunication and often preceded by what has become their specialty, hatred accompanied by personal, political, and career destruction.

When Barack Obama became president with full control of both houses of Congress, the left was ecstatic.  Some were proud of their country for the first time, blissfully unaware that most Americans had always been proud of America.

It was clear to Democrats that citizens had finally agreed to give them the opportunity and power to realize their dream of a “fair” America of equal outcome with an unchecked government elite making all decisions for everybody in a socialist utopia where everyone can have everything they want, and no decisions or policies could ever be wrong and thus ever reviewable.

When voters began to realize that Obama wasn’t as moderate as he pretended to be to get elected, they began the eight-year trek away from the Democratic utopia.  First, Democrats lost the House, then the Senate, and 2016, they lost the presidency.

The left, which had become convinced they would never again be relegated to the minority, were not only surprised, they were outraged.  Who were these people to go against the “arc of history?”  This is “not who we are” they complained.

It can be said that Trump’s election was the point where the Democrats abandoned the deplorable bastards who stole Hillary Clinton’s presidency, but it had been coming for a long time.

When Barack Obama went on his worldwide apology tour, he wasn’t apologizing for America, he was apologizing for Americans.  To himself, He was America; and Americans were merely the evil people who refused to accept this higher truth.  It wasn’t America that cost him the House and the Senate, it was Americans who rejected the truth that his radical transformation of the United States of America was god’s plan.

Trump wasn’t the beginning, he was the last straw.  That’s what sanctuary cities, abolish ICE, open borders, DACA, amnesty, and a path to citizenship are all about.  These things are not a function of compassion for the poor paperless migrant searching for a better life — remember, Democrats were anti-illegal immigration when they thought illegals were a boon to business and increased profit.  These policies are nothing more than a means by which the left can switch out Americans for people who aren’t so depraved as to think they have a right to vote against them.

The left doesn’t stifle, bury, and ridicule conservative opinion in the media, Google searches, college campuses, and the public square because they won’t tolerate disagreement, they do it because they know that only they are on the side of all that is right and just and hence, any dissent is evil.  And all dissenters are malevolent.  It’s not a lack of tolerance, the left is tolerant of all good people, but since only evil people won’t agree with them, the beastly get what they deserve.

This is why it’s so easy for them to go to extremes to express their hatred for a Kavanaugh or a Covington kid, or lie and cheat to destroy a candidate Trump, or commit crimes to usurp his presidency, or investigate anyone ever involved with the man; these people are villainous, and hatred and extremism in the battle with evil is no vice. 

This is also why everything Trump does is labeled racist.  He won’t agree with them and do as he is told; he also refuses to be quiet and accept a beating as all deplorables should.  Instead, he tries to implement policies that he believes are good for all us loathsome Americans.  This makes everything he does malicious and obviates the need for them to look at what he says or supports on an individual basis – we are wicked, and he is wicked and therefore, everything he espouses or tries to accomplish is wicked as well.

Democrats don’t want to destroy America, they want to destroy us, and in particular, Donald Trump.  We deserve it for who we are.

Right now, they are in the process of replacing execrable Americans with people who they believe will be better for the country, for America.  Therefore, they can’t ever agree on funding for a wall — a wall would only make that harder. 

We should all beware of what they will do with us when replacement is no longer an option.  After all, we already know what they are capable of — they show us every day.

There are numerous defensive, reflexive, and self-serving empty arguments against building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. One of the most misapplied ones is that “most illegal aliens enter the United States through airports, and so the wall wouldn’t do any good.”

First of all, any evidence as to how many Persons Here Illegally (PHIs) there are in the United States, let alone how they got here, is dubious. It is not as if PHIs readily comply with reporting their illegal status to census takers and law enforcement authorities so as to maintain an accurate tally. More importantly, even if the argument were true, that more PHIs enter through airports than caravans, that demonstrates an utter lack of understanding that not all PHIs are alike, and that all other things being equal, the wall would keep out the worst ones.

PHIs achieve that illegal status either by entering the United States without authorization, or entering legally and then staying here beyond their allotted time. The big difference between the two groups is that the latter have been vetted whereas the former never were. To illustrate, let us consider the examples of Frank, Juan, and Maria.

Franz and Juan are hardened criminals who have escaped prosecution and are on the run. Franz is from a European country and Juan is from Central America. Juan has an advantage over Franz: he trekked on foot and at times hitched rides up the countryside through Mexico and eventually walked across a vulnerable border spot along the U.S. southern border, into the United States. Franz, however, does not have the luxury, or ability, to sail across the Atlantic Ocean on a raft, or fly his own plane overseas. And, surely, he cannot swim across, or fly like a bird. Because of their criminal backgrounds, neither Franz nor Juan have any prayer of attaining a valid visa to enter the United States legally; their only hope is to enter illegally. Juan, based on his geographic advantage, can do so, whereas Franz is out of luck.

Then, there is Maria, a Mexican citizen who was awarded admission into an American university and flew into the United States on a student visa and enrolled. After two successful semesters, Maria received the sad news that her parents lost their family business, and would no longer be able to send her tuition money. Worse yet, they were in danger of losing their home and living on the streets. Seeking to help her family, Maria dropped out of school and got a job off the books as a waitress, and she is saving enough money to return to Mexico to help her family.

Franz, again, never even attempted to enter the United States, so he is out of the equation. Juan and Maria, though, are both here as PHIs. The difference is that Maria has an exemplary background, which is why she was allowed here in the first place. Her only transgression is that she remained illegally, motivated by the primal need to support her family. She is not likely to hold up a convenience store or join a gang. She is working hard as a waitress.

Juan, on the other hand, is immersed in crime. It is his second nature. He wouldn’t think twice about hitting an elderly person over the head, perhaps fatally, to steal a wallet or a purse. And if the chance of joining a ruthless criminal gang to make big money is a possibility, he’d jump on it in a heartbeat.

Granted, in an ideal America, the immigration system would operate so effectively that there wouldn’t be a single PHI here. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Comparing the two types of PHIs, then, those who were respectable enough to be allowed to enter legally to begin with, like Maria, and those who, like Juan, had such heinous backgrounds that the only possibly way for them to enter would be to sneak across the border, who wouldn’t prefer the Marias of the PHI universe to the Juans?

In fairness, it is important to note that sophisticated criminals, including terrorists, might have the infrastructure to circumvent the system and enter the United States legally, hoodwinking our vetting system and wreaking havoc on our nation. And though we have a great, though not foolproof counterterrorism process in place, it would be monumentally absurd to turn away from it because it is not 100% guaranteed.

Accordingly, a wall along our Southern border will not keep out every PHI, but the chances are most of our PHIs will be Marias instead of Juans. While too many Marias are still a detriment to our society in terms of logistics, they are not likely to shock our system by committing violent crimes.

To ignore the benefits of a wall by arguing that some wrongdoers might be able to outsmart the system would be like wanting to do away with every law enforcement officer in America, because not 100% of crime will be eradicated.

It is time for those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) to cut their losses and realize that opposing the wall is a preposterous, illogical, factually devoid, and thereby inevitably losing battle.

 

Constantinos E. Scaros has practiced, taught, and written about immigration law. His latest book is Stop Calling Them “Immigrants” and is available in print and Kindle formats on amazon.com. He is a contributing writer of Attorneys United for a Secure America.

Image credit: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons // via Wikipedia // CC BY-SA 4.0

 

There are numerous defensive, reflexive, and self-serving empty arguments against building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. One of the most misapplied ones is that “most illegal aliens enter the United States through airports, and so the wall wouldn’t do any good.”

First of all, any evidence as to how many Persons Here Illegally (PHIs) there are in the United States, let alone how they got here, is dubious. It is not as if PHIs readily comply with reporting their illegal status to census takers and law enforcement authorities so as to maintain an accurate tally. More importantly, even if the argument were true, that more PHIs enter through airports than caravans, that demonstrates an utter lack of understanding that not all PHIs are alike, and that all other things being equal, the wall would keep out the worst ones.

PHIs achieve that illegal status either by entering the United States without authorization, or entering legally and then staying here beyond their allotted time. The big difference between the two groups is that the latter have been vetted whereas the former never were. To illustrate, let us consider the examples of Frank, Juan, and Maria.

Franz and Juan are hardened criminals who have escaped prosecution and are on the run. Franz is from a European country and Juan is from Central America. Juan has an advantage over Franz: he trekked on foot and at times hitched rides up the countryside through Mexico and eventually walked across a vulnerable border spot along the U.S. southern border, into the United States. Franz, however, does not have the luxury, or ability, to sail across the Atlantic Ocean on a raft, or fly his own plane overseas. And, surely, he cannot swim across, or fly like a bird. Because of their criminal backgrounds, neither Franz nor Juan have any prayer of attaining a valid visa to enter the United States legally; their only hope is to enter illegally. Juan, based on his geographic advantage, can do so, whereas Franz is out of luck.

Then, there is Maria, a Mexican citizen who was awarded admission into an American university and flew into the United States on a student visa and enrolled. After two successful semesters, Maria received the sad news that her parents lost their family business, and would no longer be able to send her tuition money. Worse yet, they were in danger of losing their home and living on the streets. Seeking to help her family, Maria dropped out of school and got a job off the books as a waitress, and she is saving enough money to return to Mexico to help her family.

Franz, again, never even attempted to enter the United States, so he is out of the equation. Juan and Maria, though, are both here as PHIs. The difference is that Maria has an exemplary background, which is why she was allowed here in the first place. Her only transgression is that she remained illegally, motivated by the primal need to support her family. She is not likely to hold up a convenience store or join a gang. She is working hard as a waitress.

Juan, on the other hand, is immersed in crime. It is his second nature. He wouldn’t think twice about hitting an elderly person over the head, perhaps fatally, to steal a wallet or a purse. And if the chance of joining a ruthless criminal gang to make big money is a possibility, he’d jump on it in a heartbeat.

Granted, in an ideal America, the immigration system would operate so effectively that there wouldn’t be a single PHI here. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Comparing the two types of PHIs, then, those who were respectable enough to be allowed to enter legally to begin with, like Maria, and those who, like Juan, had such heinous backgrounds that the only possibly way for them to enter would be to sneak across the border, who wouldn’t prefer the Marias of the PHI universe to the Juans?

In fairness, it is important to note that sophisticated criminals, including terrorists, might have the infrastructure to circumvent the system and enter the United States legally, hoodwinking our vetting system and wreaking havoc on our nation. And though we have a great, though not foolproof counterterrorism process in place, it would be monumentally absurd to turn away from it because it is not 100% guaranteed.

Accordingly, a wall along our Southern border will not keep out every PHI, but the chances are most of our PHIs will be Marias instead of Juans. While too many Marias are still a detriment to our society in terms of logistics, they are not likely to shock our system by committing violent crimes.

To ignore the benefits of a wall by arguing that some wrongdoers might be able to outsmart the system would be like wanting to do away with every law enforcement officer in America, because not 100% of crime will be eradicated.

It is time for those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) to cut their losses and realize that opposing the wall is a preposterous, illogical, factually devoid, and thereby inevitably losing battle.

 

Constantinos E. Scaros has practiced, taught, and written about immigration law. His latest book is Stop Calling Them “Immigrants” and is available in print and Kindle formats on amazon.com. He is a contributing writer of Attorneys United for a Secure America.

Image credit: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons // via Wikipedia // CC BY-SA 4.0