Category: US Politics

President Donald Trump tweeted congratulations to Brandon Straka, the former Democrat who launched the #WalkAway campaign to encourage leftists who are fed with fake news and mob tactics to leave the party.

“#Walkaway  Walkaway from the Democrat Party movement marches today in D.C. Congratulations to Brandon Straka for starting something very special. @foxandfriends,” Trump tweeted on Saturday as hundreds were gathering at Freedom Plaza for a rally.

Watch Live here.

#Walkaway Walkaway from the Democrat Party movement marches today in D.C. Congratulations to Brandon Straka for starting something very special. @foxandfriends

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2018

“The Democratic Party has taken for granted that it owns racial, sexual, and religious minorities in America,” Straka said in a video he made to launch the campaign in May. “It has encouraged groupthink, hypocrisy, division, stereotyping, resentment, and the acceptance of victimhood mentality.”

Some of the speakers scheduled to speak at Saturday’s rally include Straka, Dinesh D’Souza, Stacey Dash, and Wayne Dupree. Herman Cain, California Congressional candidate Antonio Sabato Jr., Diamond and Silk, and Tomi Lahren will make video appearances.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

The national security threat at the southern border is extensive and palpable: potential terrorists and saboteurs; general and felonious human traffic; special interest aliens (SIA); weapons and ammunition, explosives, WMD; unchecked disease hazards; illicit drugs, contraband; aerial, subterranean, and submersible traffic.

The commander in chief of the United States has the solemn obligation (and power) to secure America’s borders.  To that end, all immigration laws are interpreted by the executive to extract enforcement outcomes, and then to muster tools and capabilities required to accomplish them.  Immigration laws addressing border security generally orbit border control.

Operational control is the advertised endgame of federal immigration statutes and the topic of executive branch statements and directives.  For example:

• The Secure Fence Act of 2006, PL109-367 states in part: “Not later than 18 months after its enactment, the DHS Secretary shall take all actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.”  Operational control is defined in the statute as “[t]he prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras.”
• The January 25, 2018 Whitehouse Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security states in part: “Securing the southern and northern border of the United States takes a combination of physical infrastructure, technology, personnel, and resources. The Department of Homeland Security must have the tools to deter illegal immigration; the ability to remove individuals who illegally enter the United States.

The Secure Fence Act and other federal immigration laws are not mere suggestions by the Congress of the United States.  They represent clear-cut marching orders to the commander in chief.  Related presidential memoranda issued to subordinates are meant to motivate action.

The border can be shut down in six months using existing technology and personnel.  It’s no secret how: just deploy the necessary force with vigor. The problem of a porous border is not solved by endless discussion or becoming embroiled in interior enforcement issues like workplace raids, visa overstays, or so-called deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA).  Arguments such as “we need to address the reasons so many are traveling north,” “the U.S. job market is the magnet,” and “this is not who we are; we were all immigrants once” is counterproductive and irrelevant to enforcing existing border security law.

Rigorous border enforcement entails averting the gaze from distracting minutia to embracing physics and logistics, the opposite of sociological hyperbole.  Assets, methodologies, and systems don’t deploy themselves; a sea-to-sea plan must be developed and steadfastly executed.  Partial measures and tinkering will not secure the border.

Operation Skywall (OPSW) is meant to rattle the status quo by challenging government inertia and dispelling the myth that a secure border can’t be done.  OPSW articulates the way ahead.  First, commit to an overarching tactical structure capable of accomplishing the objective.  Second, deploy and sustain it.

OPSW utilizes commercial-off-the-shelf (COT) capabilities and uses personnel drawn from tried and true geospatial disciplines.  The task force delivers a double punch: it becomes a tool of law enforcement to efficiently achieve a closed border and does it cost-effectively.

The overview: Deploy a non-lethal intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) task force along the entire southern land and maritime border of the United States.  Focus on complete border situational awareness by using geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) systems to expeditiously identify cross-border threats.  Report and archive operational data to DHS.

The execution of OPSW is in four parts: 1. Establish Geographic Scope, 2. Determine Technical Means, 3. Define Personnel Requirements, and 4. Deploy and Sustain Force.

Establish geographic scope based on threat extent

Approx. 2000 miles of land and maritime borders (to include 18 miles into Pacific and 12 miles into Gulf of Mexico); length segregated into Grid Control Sectors, 3 miles wide x 6 miles long; 6000 total square miles of persistent surveillance; 334 Grid Control Sectors total.

Determine technical means to cover geography

Reconnaissance System: 8 fixed wing or rotary, un-manned/un-armed aerial vehicles w/ gimbled cameras; 4 Ground Control Units (GCU); each Grid Control Sector will employ 3 bands of aerial recon: #1 and #2 bands run primary detection (continuous) counter-fly routes, they will notify #3 back-up band once target is locked, and will then continue primary detection mission; #3 band once notified, will engage target and stay on point until interdiction authorities arrive and apprehend target. Additional system capabilities will be added to surveillance regime as required, e.g., motion, bathymetric, and artificial intelligence threat identification.

Define personnel requirements

Personnel strength calculated on approx. 10 troops (or technicians) operating three shifts at each Grid Control Sector; 334 Grid Control Sectors x 30 troops = 10,020 troops (or technicians).

Deploy and sustain the force

Suggested course of action: utilize U.S. military forces; a military approach better ensures mission cohesiveness and discipline.  Alternative course of action: civilian contract.  Initiate a full operational capability (FOC) regime to ensure operational outcomes and to certify regular compliance to actionable benchmarks.  Task force will require battalion-level support.

The national security threat at the southern border is extensive and palpable: potential terrorists and saboteurs; general and felonious human traffic; special interest aliens (SIA); weapons and ammunition, explosives, WMD; unchecked disease hazards; illicit drugs, contraband; aerial, subterranean, and submersible traffic.

The commander in chief of the United States has the solemn obligation (and power) to secure America’s borders.  To that end, all immigration laws are interpreted by the executive to extract enforcement outcomes, and then to muster tools and capabilities required to accomplish them.  Immigration laws addressing border security generally orbit border control.

Operational control is the advertised endgame of federal immigration statutes and the topic of executive branch statements and directives.  For example:

• The Secure Fence Act of 2006, PL109-367 states in part: “Not later than 18 months after its enactment, the DHS Secretary shall take all actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.”  Operational control is defined in the statute as “[t]he prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras.”
• The January 25, 2018 Whitehouse Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security states in part: “Securing the southern and northern border of the United States takes a combination of physical infrastructure, technology, personnel, and resources. The Department of Homeland Security must have the tools to deter illegal immigration; the ability to remove individuals who illegally enter the United States.

The Secure Fence Act and other federal immigration laws are not mere suggestions by the Congress of the United States.  They represent clear-cut marching orders to the commander in chief.  Related presidential memoranda issued to subordinates are meant to motivate action.

The border can be shut down in six months using existing technology and personnel.  It’s no secret how: just deploy the necessary force with vigor. The problem of a porous border is not solved by endless discussion or becoming embroiled in interior enforcement issues like workplace raids, visa overstays, or so-called deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA).  Arguments such as “we need to address the reasons so many are traveling north,” “the U.S. job market is the magnet,” and “this is not who we are; we were all immigrants once” is counterproductive and irrelevant to enforcing existing border security law.

Rigorous border enforcement entails averting the gaze from distracting minutia to embracing physics and logistics, the opposite of sociological hyperbole.  Assets, methodologies, and systems don’t deploy themselves; a sea-to-sea plan must be developed and steadfastly executed.  Partial measures and tinkering will not secure the border.

Operation Skywall (OPSW) is meant to rattle the status quo by challenging government inertia and dispelling the myth that a secure border can’t be done.  OPSW articulates the way ahead.  First, commit to an overarching tactical structure capable of accomplishing the objective.  Second, deploy and sustain it.

OPSW utilizes commercial-off-the-shelf (COT) capabilities and uses personnel drawn from tried and true geospatial disciplines.  The task force delivers a double punch: it becomes a tool of law enforcement to efficiently achieve a closed border and does it cost-effectively.

The overview: Deploy a non-lethal intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) task force along the entire southern land and maritime border of the United States.  Focus on complete border situational awareness by using geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) systems to expeditiously identify cross-border threats.  Report and archive operational data to DHS.

The execution of OPSW is in four parts: 1. Establish Geographic Scope, 2. Determine Technical Means, 3. Define Personnel Requirements, and 4. Deploy and Sustain Force.

Establish geographic scope based on threat extent

Approx. 2000 miles of land and maritime borders (to include 18 miles into Pacific and 12 miles into Gulf of Mexico); length segregated into Grid Control Sectors, 3 miles wide x 6 miles long; 6000 total square miles of persistent surveillance; 334 Grid Control Sectors total.

Determine technical means to cover geography

Reconnaissance System: 8 fixed wing or rotary, un-manned/un-armed aerial vehicles w/ gimbled cameras; 4 Ground Control Units (GCU); each Grid Control Sector will employ 3 bands of aerial recon: #1 and #2 bands run primary detection (continuous) counter-fly routes, they will notify #3 back-up band once target is locked, and will then continue primary detection mission; #3 band once notified, will engage target and stay on point until interdiction authorities arrive and apprehend target. Additional system capabilities will be added to surveillance regime as required, e.g., motion, bathymetric, and artificial intelligence threat identification.

Define personnel requirements

Personnel strength calculated on approx. 10 troops (or technicians) operating three shifts at each Grid Control Sector; 334 Grid Control Sectors x 30 troops = 10,020 troops (or technicians).

Deploy and sustain the force

Suggested course of action: utilize U.S. military forces; a military approach better ensures mission cohesiveness and discipline.  Alternative course of action: civilian contract.  Initiate a full operational capability (FOC) regime to ensure operational outcomes and to certify regular compliance to actionable benchmarks.  Task force will require battalion-level support.

Rent control is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.  When Californians scan their ballots for the November 6 election and consider Proposition 10, which would allow local governments to impose and expand rent control laws, they should consider the long-term harms the measure would inflict on housing quantity, quality, and affordability.

Rent control is a textbook example of a price ceiling, in which prices are capped below market rates (i.e., where supply and demand are left free to interact).  As those Econ 101 textbooks will show you, many more people will demand housing at these lower prices, but fewer landlords will be willing to provide them at those rates.  This leads to a shortage of housing, which only exacerbates the affordability problem.  Furthermore, diminished landlord profits and a glut of prospective renters lead to less investment in maintaining properties and offering amenities, thereby reducing the quality of rental housing.

This is well understood among economists.  Though they struggle to agree on many issues, an astonishing 93 percent of economists in a 1992 survey of American Economic Association members agreed that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.”

And yet, here we have Prop. 10, which would roll back a 1995 law that curbs rent control.  The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibited local governments from implementing rent control for housing built after January 31, 1995.  It also exempted condos and single-family homes from rent control laws and allowed landlords to bump prices back up to market rates once a tenant left.

Santa Monica, one of the early adopters of rent control, is champing at the bit to double down on the policy if Prop. 10 passes, and property-owners and developers have taken notice.  The number of multifamily rental properties up for sale in the city is at the highest level in 20 years – with about 80 percent more listings than usual – and developers are holding off on land deals, the Wall Street Journal noted in May, as they fear plunging property values if the measure passes.

But if rent control is so harmful an economic policy, why is it still being pursued with such vigor at the ballot box?  Because it is all about politics.  As journalist Henry Hazlitt asserted in his book, Economics in One Lesson, “[t]enants have more votes than landlords.”  In an even more sobering analysis, Hazlitt observes: “The more unrealistic and unjust the rent control is, the harder it is politically to get rid of it.”  In effect, you have created a group with strong personal interests that feels forever entitled to such subsidies. The truth of this can be seen in any attempt to reduce – or even slow the growth of – any government welfare program.

The best way to improve housing affordability across the state would be to eliminate the laws and regulations that restrict supply and keep it from meeting demand.  But this is much more difficult politically than blaming “greedy” landlords, wealthy tech workers in the Bay Area, and “gentrification.”  After all, powerful unions want their prevailing wage laws, environmentalists want to prevent development to keep the environment in a “pure” state (and preserve their hiking and biking trails), neighborhood busybodies want to impose “smart growth” and prevent people from developing their own property to “preserve the character of the neighborhood,” and local governments want to impose high development fees and extract concessions from developers to pad city coffers and get others to pay for their priorities.

It is no wonder, then, that California produces 100,000 fewer housing units than it needs each year, particularly in coastal communities, according to a March 2015 Legislative Analyst’s Report, and why California home prices have gone from 30 percent above the national average in 1970 to 80 percent above average in 1980 to two and a half times the national average in 2015 (not to mention rents that are 50 percent higher).

The slogan should not be “The rent is too damn high!”  It should be “The government is too damn big!”

It is dishonest for proponents of Prop. 10 to promise that rent control will deliver affordable rents for all.  If they were more forthright, they would say, “We are going to violate people’s property rights and right of contract to force them to offer below-market rents, and only a small portion of you will actually benefit from it, while most of you will have to pay even higher prices for a smaller choice of more poorly maintained housing, or move farther away to areas without rent control.”  But that requires longer-term thinking – and doesn’t work so well on a bumper sticker or a protest sign.

Adam B. Summers is a research fellow at the Oakland, California-based Independent Institute.

Rent control is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.  When Californians scan their ballots for the November 6 election and consider Proposition 10, which would allow local governments to impose and expand rent control laws, they should consider the long-term harms the measure would inflict on housing quantity, quality, and affordability.

Rent control is a textbook example of a price ceiling, in which prices are capped below market rates (i.e., where supply and demand are left free to interact).  As those Econ 101 textbooks will show you, many more people will demand housing at these lower prices, but fewer landlords will be willing to provide them at those rates.  This leads to a shortage of housing, which only exacerbates the affordability problem.  Furthermore, diminished landlord profits and a glut of prospective renters lead to less investment in maintaining properties and offering amenities, thereby reducing the quality of rental housing.

This is well understood among economists.  Though they struggle to agree on many issues, an astonishing 93 percent of economists in a 1992 survey of American Economic Association members agreed that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.”

And yet, here we have Prop. 10, which would roll back a 1995 law that curbs rent control.  The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibited local governments from implementing rent control for housing built after January 31, 1995.  It also exempted condos and single-family homes from rent control laws and allowed landlords to bump prices back up to market rates once a tenant left.

Santa Monica, one of the early adopters of rent control, is champing at the bit to double down on the policy if Prop. 10 passes, and property-owners and developers have taken notice.  The number of multifamily rental properties up for sale in the city is at the highest level in 20 years – with about 80 percent more listings than usual – and developers are holding off on land deals, the Wall Street Journal noted in May, as they fear plunging property values if the measure passes.

But if rent control is so harmful an economic policy, why is it still being pursued with such vigor at the ballot box?  Because it is all about politics.  As journalist Henry Hazlitt asserted in his book, Economics in One Lesson, “[t]enants have more votes than landlords.”  In an even more sobering analysis, Hazlitt observes: “The more unrealistic and unjust the rent control is, the harder it is politically to get rid of it.”  In effect, you have created a group with strong personal interests that feels forever entitled to such subsidies. The truth of this can be seen in any attempt to reduce – or even slow the growth of – any government welfare program.

The best way to improve housing affordability across the state would be to eliminate the laws and regulations that restrict supply and keep it from meeting demand.  But this is much more difficult politically than blaming “greedy” landlords, wealthy tech workers in the Bay Area, and “gentrification.”  After all, powerful unions want their prevailing wage laws, environmentalists want to prevent development to keep the environment in a “pure” state (and preserve their hiking and biking trails), neighborhood busybodies want to impose “smart growth” and prevent people from developing their own property to “preserve the character of the neighborhood,” and local governments want to impose high development fees and extract concessions from developers to pad city coffers and get others to pay for their priorities.

It is no wonder, then, that California produces 100,000 fewer housing units than it needs each year, particularly in coastal communities, according to a March 2015 Legislative Analyst’s Report, and why California home prices have gone from 30 percent above the national average in 1970 to 80 percent above average in 1980 to two and a half times the national average in 2015 (not to mention rents that are 50 percent higher).

The slogan should not be “The rent is too damn high!”  It should be “The government is too damn big!”

It is dishonest for proponents of Prop. 10 to promise that rent control will deliver affordable rents for all.  If they were more forthright, they would say, “We are going to violate people’s property rights and right of contract to force them to offer below-market rents, and only a small portion of you will actually benefit from it, while most of you will have to pay even higher prices for a smaller choice of more poorly maintained housing, or move farther away to areas without rent control.”  But that requires longer-term thinking – and doesn’t work so well on a bumper sticker or a protest sign.

Adam B. Summers is a research fellow at the Oakland, California-based Independent Institute.

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, a champion of gun control, is spending $4.5 million on advertisements supporting Democrat Katie Hill, who is challenging Republican Steve Knight in California’s 25th congressional district.

The Associated Press reports that Bloomberg’s $4.5 million is part of a $9 million ad buy that also benefits Democrat Harley Rouda, who is challenging Republican Dana Rohrabacher in the 48th district.

Hill styles herself as pro-gun. In an issue statement linked on her website, she says: “As a lifelong gun owner, I am ready to be a sensible voice in the debate around gun violence. I believe that respecting the Second Amendment and advocating for gun safety measures are not mutually exclusive.” Yet Bloomberg’s massive ad buy on her behalf suggests that she would be an aggressive advocate for gun control if elected to Congress with his assistance.

Last month, Bloomberg announced that he would be spending $100 million to support Democrats’ effort to take over the House of Representatives in an effort to advance his agenda. His massive ad buy on Hill’s behalf is a big chunk of that sum.

Ironically, in a debate in Simi Valley, California, on Thursday evening, Hill accused Knight of being funded by special interests who wanted to distort the policy preferences of the district in Washington.

The Los Angeles Times notes: “The closing burst of advertising from Bloomberg was a reminder that Hill, despite her spectacular success in fundraising, still faces a tough fight to dislodge Knight in conservative-leaning suburbs on the northern outskirts of Los Angeles. Bloomberg’s first TV ad for Hill casts her as a champion for veterans in the state’s 25th Congressional District.”

Hill favors the gas tax, among other taxes, and protested the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — despite being caught on camera making a sex joke at the expense of a female staffer. She also professed ignorance in a previous debate about the Cemez sand and gravel mine, one of the most important issues facing the 25th district.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

On June 16, 2016, a man with a history of mental health problems and Nazi sympathies stabbed, shot, and killed British Member of Parliament Helen “Jo” Cox, a member of the Labor Party who happened to oppose the “Brexit” referendum.

A week later, British voters went to the polls and chose to leave the European Union, stunning political observers and defying expectations that Cox’s assassination would provide a late boost to the “Remain” campaign.

Cox’s murder was a singular event, a brutal and terrible loss that had little, if anything, to do with the politics of the moment.

Yet the media, the left, and European leaders immediately pounced on her death to smear Brexit and rally support for Remain.

EU Commissioner for Migration Dimitris Avramopoulos tweeted that Cox had been murdered for her “dedication” to the EU, and French politician Alain Juppé said she was “murdered because of her beliefs.”

British commentator Polly Toynbee blamed the “corrosive” atmosphere allegedly created by the Brexit campaign. “This attack on a public official cannot be viewed in isolation. It occurs against a backdrop of an ugly public mood in which we have been told to despise the political class,” she wrote. While allowing that there were “many decent people” supporting Brexit, others “bear responsibility, not for the attack itself, but for the current mood,” she added.

The conventional wisdom was that public opinion would consolidate behind the “Remain” campaign in reaction to the assassination, perhaps as a statement of solidarity.

And yet British voters delivered the opposite verdict, seeing the Cox event for the horrific event that it was, but without allowing it to curtail their right to express their views through the ballot box. They were neither intimidated by the violence, nor shamed by it. They mourned, then voted.

Thankfully, none of the mail bombs that turned up in the U.S. this week caused death or even injury. Still, much of the American media, and the leadership of the Democratic Party, have declared that President Donald Trump is to blame.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) said Wednesday that Trump’s “words ring hollow until he reverses his statements that condone acts of violence.”

CNN is determined to hang the bombs on Trump. A chyron on Thursday identified the bombs as having been sent to “Trump’s targets.” When Trump denounced political violence and called for national unity from the White House on Wednesday afternoon, a CNN analyst said he had only done the “bare minimum.” When he criticized the media’s role later that evening, CNN’s Jim Acosta protested that Trump “took no responsibility for his own rhetoric.”

The media and the Democrats do not want to have a real conversation about the role of rhetoric in encouraging political violence. That would require them to examine their own behavior, and ask whether it led to events such as last year’s mass shooting by a crazed Democrat who tried to kill Republicans at baseball practice. (Thankfully, there were no deaths in that incident, either, though House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was nearly killed.)

The attempt to blame Trump — and only Trump — suggests that the media and the left are primarily interested in exploiting the mail bombs to help Democrats win the midterm elections. In the process, they continue to smear Trump and his supporters.

If Britain’s example is any guide, Americans should — and will — reject political violence, march to the polls, ignore the noise, and do what they were going to do anyway — whatever that turns out to be.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

News about the caravan of illegal aliens from Central America who are making their way across Mexico in an attempt to breach the US border has been shuttled to the sidelines thanks to the attempted bombing of prominent Democrats.

But they’re still coming. And as they approach the US border, more questions are being asked about who organized the caravan in the first place?

Many on the right believe George Soros is behind the effort. But an investigation by Fox News discovered that domestic Honduran politics was the impetus for forming the caravan and sending it on its way.

“This caravan was initially organized by Bartolo Fuentes, a known leftist activist and former member of the national Congress in 2013, representing the political party of deposed Honduras president Manuel Zelaya,” Johan Obdola, president of Latin America-focused global intelligence and security firm IOSI, told Fox News. “Now, this is not new, but is the first time it gets a high level of international media attention. And the reasons are beyond the political.”

Obdola argued it’s in the interest of Honduran opposition members like Zelaya to “actively create violent acts and destabilization in Honduras,” and said the caravans are part of a plan to keep the region “in constant chaos.” He also argued the former Honduran leader – who served as president from 2006 to 2009 – is closely allied with the Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro, and questioned that conflict-riddled nation’s role in fostering mass migration in an effort to embarrass the current, pro-U.S. Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Honduras has been plagued by discord since its election last November of Hernandez, who defeated Zelaya. Many Zelaya supporters protested the results, claiming they were fixed in favor of a U.S-approved leader. The subsequent unrest has been cited as a key factor for Hondurans wanting to leave their country.

Fuentes, a former Zelaya government legislator and host of the migration-focused radio show “Without Borders,” is often characterized by Honduran government figures as a “coyote,” or human trafficker. To others, he is a social activist. Fuentes himself last week was pulled from the main caravan group in Guatemala and deported back to Honduras.

Zelaya staunchly denied any link to the caravan, or any effort to push Hondurans toward the United States.

Zelaya’s supporters may be pulling the strings behind the scenes, but the group  Pueblo Sin Fronteras, or “People Without Borders” were heavily involved in organizing the caravan.

Capital Research Center:

Some left-leaning publications such as the New York Times have said that “no group has claimed responsibility for organizing [the most recent] caravan,” perhaps in order to stave off claims by President Trump and other conservatives that it is being aided by left-wing activists in the United States.

The Times, however, is only partially correct. While no single group has claimed control of the migrant caravan, at least two activists from Pueblo Sin Fronteras—Denis Omar Contreras and Rodrigo Abeja—are embedded in the caravan, according to the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the Mexican newspaper La Jornada. Contreras (sometimes spelled Contera or Contrera) reportedly helped lead the caravan to illegally enter Mexico, where he told migrants “Welcome to Tapachula!” (referencing a town near the Guatemala border). Abeja, too, was identified as one of the leaders of the April 2018 caravans, which were also supported by Pueblo Sin Fronteras.

On October 18, Irineo Mujica—director of Pueblo Sin Fronteras in Mexico and an American citizen—was arrested by Mexican officials for allegedly attacking immigration officials at a pro-illegal immigration protest near the Guatemala-Mexico border.

And while Pueblo Sin Fronteras organizer Alex Mensing, an American, toldreporters that Mujica was not involved in the most recent caravan, Mujica was detained in April for leading a previous caravan into Mexico with the support of Pueblo Sin Fronteras. A March 23, 2018 press release on the group’s Facebook page lists Mujica as its Mexico contact, as well as Mensing in the United States. And in an October 21 press release also signed by Mujica, the group accused the governments in Mexico and Central America of adopting “a policy of fear and racism imposed by the United States, doing its dirty work and shouldering the cost of repressive tactics that do not take into account the root causes of this exodus.” The group then demanded Mexico become a “sanctuary country.”

People Without Borders has numerous US connections to left wing individuals and groups, including the Hispanic radical group LULAC and a Chicago church known for its activism on behalf of illegal aliens.

Mexico seems disinclined to stop the caravan from getting to the US border. The president has asked the Pentagon to send 800 more troops to the border to assist ICE in preventing the mass violation of our border laws, but most of the people in this carvan are not looking to force their way into the country. They will line up and request asylum. What Trump does at that point is anyone’s guess.

 

News about the caravan of illegal aliens from Central America who are making their way across Mexico in an attempt to breach the US border has been shuttled to the sidelines thanks to the attempted bombing of prominent Democrats.

But they’re still coming. And as they approach the US border, more questions are being asked about who organized the caravan in the first place?

Many on the right believe George Soros is behind the effort. But an investigation by Fox News discovered that domestic Honduran politics was the impetus for forming the caravan and sending it on its way.

“This caravan was initially organized by Bartolo Fuentes, a known leftist activist and former member of the national Congress in 2013, representing the political party of deposed Honduras president Manuel Zelaya,” Johan Obdola, president of Latin America-focused global intelligence and security firm IOSI, told Fox News. “Now, this is not new, but is the first time it gets a high level of international media attention. And the reasons are beyond the political.”

Obdola argued it’s in the interest of Honduran opposition members like Zelaya to “actively create violent acts and destabilization in Honduras,” and said the caravans are part of a plan to keep the region “in constant chaos.” He also argued the former Honduran leader – who served as president from 2006 to 2009 – is closely allied with the Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro, and questioned that conflict-riddled nation’s role in fostering mass migration in an effort to embarrass the current, pro-U.S. Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Honduras has been plagued by discord since its election last November of Hernandez, who defeated Zelaya. Many Zelaya supporters protested the results, claiming they were fixed in favor of a U.S-approved leader. The subsequent unrest has been cited as a key factor for Hondurans wanting to leave their country.

Fuentes, a former Zelaya government legislator and host of the migration-focused radio show “Without Borders,” is often characterized by Honduran government figures as a “coyote,” or human trafficker. To others, he is a social activist. Fuentes himself last week was pulled from the main caravan group in Guatemala and deported back to Honduras.

Zelaya staunchly denied any link to the caravan, or any effort to push Hondurans toward the United States.

Zelaya’s supporters may be pulling the strings behind the scenes, but the group  Pueblo Sin Fronteras, or “People Without Borders” were heavily involved in organizing the caravan.

Capital Research Center:

Some left-leaning publications such as the New York Times have said that “no group has claimed responsibility for organizing [the most recent] caravan,” perhaps in order to stave off claims by President Trump and other conservatives that it is being aided by left-wing activists in the United States.

The Times, however, is only partially correct. While no single group has claimed control of the migrant caravan, at least two activists from Pueblo Sin Fronteras—Denis Omar Contreras and Rodrigo Abeja—are embedded in the caravan, according to the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the Mexican newspaper La Jornada. Contreras (sometimes spelled Contera or Contrera) reportedly helped lead the caravan to illegally enter Mexico, where he told migrants “Welcome to Tapachula!” (referencing a town near the Guatemala border). Abeja, too, was identified as one of the leaders of the April 2018 caravans, which were also supported by Pueblo Sin Fronteras.

On October 18, Irineo Mujica—director of Pueblo Sin Fronteras in Mexico and an American citizen—was arrested by Mexican officials for allegedly attacking immigration officials at a pro-illegal immigration protest near the Guatemala-Mexico border.

And while Pueblo Sin Fronteras organizer Alex Mensing, an American, toldreporters that Mujica was not involved in the most recent caravan, Mujica was detained in April for leading a previous caravan into Mexico with the support of Pueblo Sin Fronteras. A March 23, 2018 press release on the group’s Facebook page lists Mujica as its Mexico contact, as well as Mensing in the United States. And in an October 21 press release also signed by Mujica, the group accused the governments in Mexico and Central America of adopting “a policy of fear and racism imposed by the United States, doing its dirty work and shouldering the cost of repressive tactics that do not take into account the root causes of this exodus.” The group then demanded Mexico become a “sanctuary country.”

People Without Borders has numerous US connections to left wing individuals and groups, including the Hispanic radical group LULAC and a Chicago church known for its activism on behalf of illegal aliens.

Mexico seems disinclined to stop the caravan from getting to the US border. The president has asked the Pentagon to send 800 more troops to the border to assist ICE in preventing the mass violation of our border laws, but most of the people in this carvan are not looking to force their way into the country. They will line up and request asylum. What Trump does at that point is anyone’s guess.

 

Latinos and Hispanics, legally here in the U.S. are speaking out against the caravan heading north from Honduras to the U.S.

That was the report from Univision, which is hardly a conservative news site.

According to the Daily Caller, they’re saying things like this:

“How is it possible that a caravan from Central America is on it’s way to the U.S. and the people are speaking the way they’re speaking, demanding to get in. No sir, this isn’t their country and they need to respect it,” one man said.

Another woman told Megid, “like the president says, they can come here, but they need to come here legally like the rest of us.”

Megid also spoke with a Honduran woman who says she came to the U.S. in the last caravan from Central America. “It’s not right that so many people are heading to the U.S. in this Honduran caravan,” she said.

It squares with what a lot of Latinos and Hispanics are thinking, at least the ones I know.

Because unlike the black community, they aren’t a near-monolith on the political front. Trump got a healthy 29% of their vote, in what USAToday called “another election surprise” which suggests a rather unfamiliarity with Latinos, who by the way, hate being called that. (Like Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans, they’re happy to just be called by their country of origin as a shorthand even though they are Americans – e.g., Venezuelans, Cubans, Mexicans, etc.)

There are plenty of conservative and libertarian Latinos, too. Off the top of my head, one of the most interesting, Lydia Ortega, runs the San Jose State University economics department and ran for California’s lieutenant governor’s slot. I voted for her.

Many very conservative Latinos live in the Los Angeles area, working class and sometimes very elite. I know one working class family in the construction industry that was originally from the Guadalajara area, refugees from the Cristero persecution of the early 20th century, who moved to Glendale to get away from all the illegals and their mayhem around South Pasadena. They can’t stand lawbreaking, including immigration lawbreaking. Two-time Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez in the Los Angeles area would kill you if you called him Mexican, but yes, half his ancestry is also of Cristero Mexican origin, and his views on illegality are perfectly visible in his art. I have an Argentinian friend who pulled herself up by her bootstraps, starting as a Miami club hostess owing to her spectacular beauty, and moving on to become a Los Angeles Police Department officer, and is now working on her masters in psychology to become a psychologist. An amazing immigrant success story, and she’s conservative as hell. Of course she’s against the lawbreakers.

New Mexico is loaded with conservatives of Hispanic origin, and so is Nevada, Arizona, and Texas. Let’s not even get started Miami Cubans and Miami Venezuelans in Florida.

People like this in fact are “normals” as Kurt Schlichter would say, people who obey the rules, work hard, achieve success, and expect no favors, no goodies, no free stuff, and are no different from other normal Americans. They like rule of law. They like one set of laws for everyone, not two. They like laws to mean what they say. It’s all part of being normal and conservative.

And yes, they get lumped in with what Democrats imagine is Their Vote. Lately, the news has been citing a Pew study suggesting that Latinos have “serious concerns” about their place in America. I read the study closely and found that it did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Take out the mixed immigrant count from it and you see a healthy regard among Latinos for Trump and his agenda, as well as a healthy regard for his economy. If you’re here illegally, yes, your work prospects have probably gone down.

So to say Latino-Americans are against Trump is nonsense, and to say they all support the leftwing Chavista-inspired caravan is absolute nonsense.

Based on the random people Univision found, sentiment against illegal immigration is high among random Latinos. Their quotes suggest they dislike the arrogance, the entitlement, and the inability to address rule of law of the immigration activists whipping up Central America’s migrants. They don’t want to see the place they came to become the place they left, because the biggest difference we see out there is that the U.S. has rule of law and the other countries do not. Even Hernando de Soto, who wrote ‘The Mystery of Capital’ pinpointed that difference between the two places. Latin Americans and U.S. Americans get along great with each other all the time, always amazed at how like each other they are, I hear this over and over and think it myself. The problem is illegality, and the caravan is a open advertisement and advocacy of just that.

Any questions as to why so many Latinos are speaking out?

 

Image credit: Ali Zifan, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 4.0

Latinos and Hispanics, legally here in the U.S. are speaking out against the caravan heading north from Honduras to the U.S.

That was the report from Univision, which is hardly a conservative news site.

According to the Daily Caller, they’re saying things like this:

“How is it possible that a caravan from Central America is on it’s way to the U.S. and the people are speaking the way they’re speaking, demanding to get in. No sir, this isn’t their country and they need to respect it,” one man said.

Another woman told Megid, “like the president says, they can come here, but they need to come here legally like the rest of us.”

Megid also spoke with a Honduran woman who says she came to the U.S. in the last caravan from Central America. “It’s not right that so many people are heading to the U.S. in this Honduran caravan,” she said.

It squares with what a lot of Latinos and Hispanics are thinking, at least the ones I know.

Because unlike the black community, they aren’t a near-monolith on the political front. Trump got a healthy 29% of their vote, in what USAToday called “another election surprise” which suggests a rather unfamiliarity with Latinos, who by the way, hate being called that. (Like Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans, they’re happy to just be called by their country of origin as a shorthand even though they are Americans – e.g., Venezuelans, Cubans, Mexicans, etc.)

There are plenty of conservative and libertarian Latinos, too. Off the top of my head, one of the most interesting, Lydia Ortega, runs the San Jose State University economics department and ran for California’s lieutenant governor’s slot. I voted for her.

Many very conservative Latinos live in the Los Angeles area, working class and sometimes very elite. I know one working class family in the construction industry that was originally from the Guadalajara area, refugees from the Cristero persecution of the early 20th century, who moved to Glendale to get away from all the illegals and their mayhem around South Pasadena. They can’t stand lawbreaking, including immigration lawbreaking. Two-time Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez in the Los Angeles area would kill you if you called him Mexican, but yes, half his ancestry is also of Cristero Mexican origin, and his views on illegality are perfectly visible in his art. I have an Argentinian friend who pulled herself up by her bootstraps, starting as a Miami club hostess owing to her spectacular beauty, and moving on to become a Los Angeles Police Department officer, and is now working on her masters in psychology to become a psychologist. An amazing immigrant success story, and she’s conservative as hell. Of course she’s against the lawbreakers.

New Mexico is loaded with conservatives of Hispanic origin, and so is Nevada, Arizona, and Texas. Let’s not even get started Miami Cubans and Miami Venezuelans in Florida.

People like this in fact are “normals” as Kurt Schlichter would say, people who obey the rules, work hard, achieve success, and expect no favors, no goodies, no free stuff, and are no different from other normal Americans. They like rule of law. They like one set of laws for everyone, not two. They like laws to mean what they say. It’s all part of being normal and conservative.

And yes, they get lumped in with what Democrats imagine is Their Vote. Lately, the news has been citing a Pew study suggesting that Latinos have “serious concerns” about their place in America. I read the study closely and found that it did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Take out the mixed immigrant count from it and you see a healthy regard among Latinos for Trump and his agenda, as well as a healthy regard for his economy. If you’re here illegally, yes, your work prospects have probably gone down.

So to say Latino-Americans are against Trump is nonsense, and to say they all support the leftwing Chavista-inspired caravan is absolute nonsense.

Based on the random people Univision found, sentiment against illegal immigration is high among random Latinos. Their quotes suggest they dislike the arrogance, the entitlement, and the inability to address rule of law of the immigration activists whipping up Central America’s migrants. They don’t want to see the place they came to become the place they left, because the biggest difference we see out there is that the U.S. has rule of law and the other countries do not. Even Hernando de Soto, who wrote ‘The Mystery of Capital’ pinpointed that difference between the two places. Latin Americans and U.S. Americans get along great with each other all the time, always amazed at how like each other they are, I hear this over and over and think it myself. The problem is illegality, and the caravan is a open advertisement and advocacy of just that.

Any questions as to why so many Latinos are speaking out?

 

Image credit: Ali Zifan, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 4.0