Posted on

Feds Imported 1.4K Refugees to U.S. from Travel Ban Countries in 2019

The federal government has brought nearly 1,400 refugees to the United States over the last year from foreign countries listed on President Donald Trump’s constitutional travel ban.

In 2o19, the State Department imported exactly 1,378 refugees from Chad, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen — six of the eight countries on Trump’s travel ban list, which also includes North Korea and Libya. This indicates a more than 783 percent increase between 2018 and 2019 of refugees from travel ban countries arriving in the U.S.

Almost half of those refugees, roughly 631, arrived in the U.S. from Syria — 115 of which were resettled in California, while 51 were resettled in Illinois, 49 were resettled in Michigan, and 41 were resettled in Texas.

Another 512 refugees arrived last year from Iraq, a country that remains on the travel ban list. A bulk of these Iraqi refugees resettled in California, Texas, Michigan, and Illinois. About 216 refugees arrived last year from Iran, the majority of which were resettled in California, 63, and Texas, 38.

The remainder of refugees from travel ban countries came from Chad from where eight were resettled, Venezuela had nine resettled, and Yemen had two who were resettled for all of 2019. No refugees arrived from Libya or North Korea.

This level of refugee resettlement from travel ban countries is soaringly high compared to the only 156 refugees from these same countries that were resettled a year before in 2018. They do, however, remain vastly lower than the nearly 8,000 refugees from travel ban countries that arrived in 2017 before the travel ban was fully implemented.

There are nine refugee contractors that resettle all refugees for the State Department every year. These refugee contractors have a vested interest in ensuring as many refugees are resettled across the U.S. because their annual federally funded budgets are contingent on the number of refugees they resettle. Those refugee contractors include:

Church World Service (CWS), Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC), Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM), Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), International Rescue Committee (IRC), U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS), U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and World Relief Corporation (WR).

The federally mandated refugee resettlement program has brought more than 718,000 refugees to the U.S. between 2008 t0 2018 — a group larger than the entire state population of Wyoming, which has 577,000 residents. In that period, about 73,000 refugees have been resettled in California, 71,500 resettled in Texas, nearly 43,000 resettled in New York, and more than 36,000 resettled in Michigan.

Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to the latest research. Over the course of five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.

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

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Germany to Offer ‘Hush Money’ to People Forced to Live by Wind Farms

The government of Germany will consider a proposal by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) to pay citizens money who are forced to live next to wind turbines.

In response to rising protests against the installation of wind farms, under the German government’s ‘Energiewende’ green energy initiative, the SDP has proposed a plan to offer “direct financial incentives for people who live in those regions”.

“Those people who accept windmills in their neighbourhood, and so make the expansion of renewable energy possible, should be rewarded,” said SPD environment spokesman Matthias Miersch according to DW.

The payoff money would be given to local authorities; however, it would have to be spent on direct handouts to citizens. The move was criticised by Uwe Brandl, the president of the German Association of Towns and Municipalities, who described the scheme as hush money.

“What we’re noticing now is more in the direction of paying people to keep quiet,” he said. “I don’t think that’s the right direction. If we start paying for people to keep quiet, then it’ll start with windmills and will go on with roads and other infrastructure measures.”

“I think the government would be well-advised to sensitize people to the fact that they’re part of this game, part of this society, and change is only possible if everyone is ready to participate in it,” he added.

There has been a rising number of ‘not in my backyard’ protests across Germany against the installation of wind farms.

Rudi Frischmuth, a resident of the rural town of Langerwehe in Western Germany, said that the wind farm close to his house “drives you insane at night”.

“The big cities are the ones telling us to deal with the wind turbines, but they don’t want any themselves. It can’t be that one part of the population keeps getting disadvantaged,” Frischmuth told DW.

In December, President Donald Trump took aim at Germany over the country’s energy policy, saying that the pollution created in the production of wind turbines in Germany outweigh any benefits.

“Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything right?” said President Trump.

“If you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 per cent of the price. They’re noisy,” he added.

Follow Kurt on Twitter at @KurtZindulka

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Farage: Remainers Refusing ‘Losers’ Consent’ Did ‘Untold Damage’ to UK

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage has slammed Remainers for holding back the country for three-and-a-half years by stalling Brexit, saying it had done “untold damage” to the United Kingdom.

Speaking to talkRADIO host Julia Hartley-Brewer, Mr Farage praised the near-realisation of the June 2016 referendum result, calling it a “victory for ordinary people”.

“The entire establishment, just a few years ago, did not even want to discuss Brexit,” Mr Farage said, adding: “This victory has really come because thousands of ordinary folk up and down this country have campaigned for years. It is a remarkable thing. It just shows you that if you live in a democracy, anything is possible.”

He went on to criticise powerful Remainers, including former prime ministers, who by failing to accept the result — “losers’ consent” — had jeopardised the country’s standing internationally and hurt its economy.

The Brexit Party leader said: “I think they’ve done untold damage to this country in three-and-a-half years, firstly in terms of the economy and the way in which we could have been moving on, and secondly in terms of our global standing.”

Mr Farage’s assessment on the economic implications appears accurate, with the financial information firm IHS Markit finding that the British economy is being helped by the certainty over Brexit brought by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s election victory.

“The modest rebound in new work provides another signal that business conditions should begin to improve in the coming months, helped by a boost to business sentiment from greater Brexit clarity and a more predictable political landscape,” Tim Moore, Economics Associate Director at IHS Markit, said in comments reported by the Associated Press on Monday.

Despite Mr Farage’s criticisms on Remainers’ past endeavours, he observed that many in the Europhile camp — including fanatic Remainer Alastair Campbell — have now accepted that Brexit is happening, and a second referendum is “finished”. However, he intimated that the next battleground Remainers may pick could be over “the terms in which we’re leaving” — i.e., close alignment with the EU in a trade deal.

Speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr on Sunday, Remainer and Labour leadership hopeful Keir Starmer admitted that “the argument has to move on” from Leave or a second referendum, but believes for him and his colleagues: “The argument, now, is can we insist on that close relationship with the EU?” Fellow contender Jess Phillips, however, has said that she would “fight” to rejoin the EU.

On those remarks, Mr Farage said: “I think if the next Labour leader hints that at some point we might rejoin the European Union, they will find a shrinking minority of this population that support that view and the vast majority of us saying, ‘for goodness’ sake, the war is over, let’s just get on with the rest of our lives!’”

The Leave campaigner said that post-Brexit, his party would be rebranded as the Reform Party, devoted to taking on reforming undemocratic aspects of the UK’s political system. While Mr Farage has discussed the Reform Party since November, a report from this week revealed that Prime Minister Johnson is tasking as part of a commission on the constitution to look into the future of the House of Lords and whether it should be replaced by a senate of regions and nations, giving a louder voice to areas outside of London and to the working classes.

Mr Farage told Hartley-Brewer: “We have a parliament that is not necessarily representative of the opinion in this country. We have an electoral system that is out of date with postal voting massively open to fraud and intimidation.

“We have a system of patronage and peerages whereby friends get rewarded, enemies get bought off and chucked in the House of Lords. That has no place in twenty-first-century Britain. I do think that the time and mood for genuine political change and reform is there.”

Asked whether he would rule out accepting a knighthood or a peerage, Mr Farage said: “I’m not for sale. That isn’t what I want to do.” However, he joked on whether that was a categorical “never”: “Anyone that ever says never is very, very stupid.”

He clarified: “I have no interest in doing that. I think the House of Lords needs to go. In the twenty-first century, let’s have an elected upper chamber. That would be a lot more democratic.”

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

DYS: Religious Liberty Must Be Respected In The Era Of Same-Sex Marriage

There has to be a way to honor someone’s religious beliefs and respect members of the LGBT community at the same time. Judge Dianne Hensley thought she struck that balance. Instead, she received an official reprimand from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“Commission”).

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, public officials who are authorized (but not required) to officiate wedding ceremonies have faced the same dilemma Dianne faced. Many, rather than risk compromising their religious convictions, simply stopped officiating all weddings. But some demand that justices of the peace like Dianne either officiate all marriages or find themselves disqualified from office altogether.

Dianne knew there had to be another way. What if she were able to reconcile her religious beliefs with serving the needs of her community?

She knows that her convictions prevent her from officiating gay weddings, but she also respectfully understands that many of her gay friends do not share that same conviction. If she, like most of the justices of the peace in McLennan County, Texas, stopped officiating weddings altogether, it is those without ready access to low-cost alternatives who suffer most.

Instead, she found a way to honor her religious convictions and make sure any gay couple who wanted to get married could get married without delay or additional cost. Her referral system worked brilliantly.

If, because of schedule or moral reasons, Dianne could not officiate a requested wedding, she referred them to those who could — including a nearby walk-in wedding chapel. As soon as the couple holding a marriage license could make the three-block walk to the walk-in wedding chapel, they could be married.

It would cost the same, too. In fact, Judge Hensley offered to pay from her own pocket the difference between her rate and that of the walk-in wedding chapel. But the walk-in wedding chapel simply agreed to reduce its rate, instead, for those referred by Judge Hensley’s office.

It worked well. Dianne’s religious convictions remained undisturbed and her referral efforts accounted for more low-cost gay weddings than perhaps any other public official in all of McLennan County. But then, without having received a complaint, the Commission launched an investigation. Rather than praise her proactive problem solving, they determined she had to be reprimanded.

Dianne received a “Public Warning” for trying to honor her religious beliefs while respecting members of the gay community. It’s understandable why many have strong feelings about gay marriage, but surely we should be able to agree that justices of the peace like Dianne Hensley should not have their careers ruined for following both the rules of their faith and the law alike.

Surely in 2019, we can find a way to protect those with religious beliefs that prevent them from officiating weddings with which they morally disagree, while also accommodating the marriage of anyone lawfully allowed to wed. At the very least, no state agency should be punishing Dianne for her reasonable effort to reconcile her religious beliefs while meeting the needs of her community.

In fact, in a lawsuit we at First Liberty Institute filed in defense of Dianne, we argue that the Commission’s disciplinary actions violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There’s no compelling justification for the commissioners to punish a justice of the peace who, rather than cease officiating weddings entirely, accommodated more low-cost same-sex marriages than perhaps anyone in her entire local area.

Judge Hensley also hopes to continue using her referral system, even though she’s not required to officiate weddings at all. More than that, justices of the peace and other elected officials with the ability to officiate weddings are watching, hoping for a way to honor the distinctiveness of their faith while also respecting those in the gay community who wish to be married.

Is the only option really more reprimands? More penalties? More fines? Why must it either be officiate no weddings, officiate all weddings, or be disqualified from office because of your religious convictions, when there is a reasonable way to respect everyone involved?

Rather than punish her, the Commission ought to have recognized Dianne’s effort to balance her faith with the needs of her community — a type of basic, human, and much needed fairness missing in much of America today.

 

Jeremy Dys (@JeremyDys) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at FirstLiberty.org.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Posted on

Levin: The Trump Doctrine

Monday night on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin discussed the ongoing debate over the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian general and terrorist mastermind Qassem Soleimani and how it fits into President Donald Trump’s foreign policy doctrine.

The Trump Doctrine, Levin explained, rejects the foreign policy tenets of both the Obama and Bush administrations, which, he said, were guided largely by overarching principles of appeasement and interventionism, respectively.

“So what’s the Trump Doctrine? I say it’s much like the Reagan Doctrine, but it has its own features to it,” Levin explained. “He believes in having the number-one military on the face of the earth, so he’s had to rebuild the military that, under the Obama Doctrine, they degraded. But he doesn’t believe in these interventions; he doesn’t believe in state-building. So he rejects the Obama Doctrine when it comes to the United States military and weakening it. He rejects the Bush Doctrine when it comes to interventionism and state-building; he saw what happened in Iraq. But he believes in American national security.”

Leven later added that Trump “exercises prudence” on questions of foreign policy: “He doesn’t say, ‘Look, in every case, I’m sending in the United States military,’ and he doesn’t say, ‘In every case, I’m going to appease through diplomacy.’”

Listen:

Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up now!

 

The post Levin: The Trump Doctrine appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com

Posted on

Iran Is Weak and Soleimani Is Still Dead

If I learned anything growing up in the Bronx in the 1970s and 1980s it is this: When someone says they are going to kill you, you should believe them.  Iranian leaders have been vowing, “Death to America” for four decades.  Successive presidents have striven mightily to not only ignore their declaration but also to maintain it lacked the solemnity of true intent. 

Why else would the smartest president ever, Barack Obama, through his sham legacy foreign policy accomplishment, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agree to cede Iran a secured path to developing nuclear weapons?

As a corollary, it is almost an aphorism to state that when someone keeps pushing, at some point, you must push back, or attrition will be your fate.

In this, the simplicity in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s combination statement/oath uttered in reference to an obscure phone call about military aid can’t be beaten.  He said, “Nobody pushed me.” 

Trump exercises great forbearance when it comes to military response.  He did so with Iran.  Even as it ratcheted up its provocations, he exercised due discretion.  But Iran crossed a line, and nobody pushes Trump.  When Iran killed an American, Trump killed dozens.  In response, they tried to overrun our embassy and Soleimani became a smear on a road to historical infamy.

Qassem Soleimani was in a Baghdad meeting with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of Kataib Hezb’allah, his new pet militia — mere miles away from our embassy, and immediately subsequent to the militia’s test-assault.  They were there to plot and execute more terrorist attacks on America.  Democrats ignore this.

One of these planned attacks was rumored to be a full-scale takeover of the embassy, as in Iran in 1979.  Incidentally, 1979 was the year Iran began its war on America.

Democrats like to pretend Obama didn’t spend eight years burning down the world:  Barry invited Russia back into Syria (after a 25-year absence); gave Syria to Iran and Russia; destroyed Libya (without congressional authorization); gave Iraq to Iran, while guaranteeing Iran a nuclear weapon (in a few years) through the JCPOA non-treaty; as well as financing its worldwide terrorism network (run by Soleimani) with a $150 billion gift.  Plus, $1.4 billion in pallets of cash was paid as ransom for the return nine kidnapped and humiliated American sailors. 

They also ignore that it was Barry who opened the floodgate of “refugees” and potential terrorists, now raping and pillaging their way across Europe, perhaps culturally transforming the continent forever (Barry was always big on “transformation”).

It’s almost as if Obama was working for Iran.

Trump’s assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis was a brilliant tactical move.  Done on a quiet road near the Baghdad International Airport to minimize collateral damage, it was a decapitation of Iran’s military; it was Iran’s “Yamamoto Moment.”  

Soleimani commanded the IRGC’s Quds Force, which is the primary instrument of control in Iran’s attempt at regional hegemony by establishing a Shiite Crescent land bridge to the Mediterranean Sea, as well as its weapon of choice to foment terror and exercise control over its satrapies, Lebanon, Syria, and now, Iraq.

General David Petraeus called Soleimani “our most significant and evil adversary.”  He also said Soleimani’s elimination was bigger than bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

After all, Baghdadi died like a dog in a cave after the demise of his “caliphate” and bin Laden was in hiding, spending his final days surfing the net for kiddy porn.  Soleimani was king of the terrorist world.  Yet as “austere” and “revered” Soleimani might have been, it didn’t matter to Trump, he counterpunched the Quds leader down the chute to hell. 

Trump does not lead from behind, he kicks behind.  With the killing of Soleimani, Trump has given notice to the mullahs that there will be no more tit-for-tat because from now on, America will do the escalating.

Somewhere across the globe Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong-un are destroying the SIM cards from their cell phones.

Of course, the Democrats and the media, having copyrighted the slogan, “Death to America” didn’t see it that way.  The Democrats’ sole interest is partisan political advantage, no matter how damaging to America.  And the media’s sole interest is advancing the interests of the Democratic Party.

They are up in arms about Congress not being notified before the attack.  Yet, everyone knows that had Trump notified Congress, there would have been several Democrats on the phone to the ayatollah within minutes. 

They’ve called the killing a “dangerous escalation.”  Dismissing the fact that Iran has been waging war on America for 40 years, they claim America will now be subject to vicious Iranian reprisals.

Spengler says it best:

“Iran revealed part of its strategic capability in September when Iranian infiltrators used ground-hugging cruise missiles and autonomous drones to destroy Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia. Iran tested its “Khorramshahr “ missile with an estimated 2,000-kilometer range in 2017. It is not known how effective the weapon is or how many Iran possesses. It is possible that Iran has enough ordnance to swamp American anti-missile defenses at its Doha airbase or to overcome the air defenses on an American warship in the Persian Gulf.”

He added this:

“[Iran’s] September attack on Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia exposed the weakness of US air defenses. The Patriot anti-missile system can’t shoot anything flying lower than 60 meters, and Iran has low-flying cruise missiles. A successful strike against Doha certainly figures in American calculations.”

But he also noted the potential options available to Trump:

“If Iran were to attack Doha, America’s response likely would be devastating. Two dozen missiles or bombing sorties could wipe out Iran’s economy in a matter of hours. Fewer than a dozen power plants generate 60% of Iran’s electricity, and eight refineries produce 80% of its distillates. A single missile strike could disable each of these facilities, and bunker-buster bombs of the kind that Israel used last month in Lebanon would entirely destroy them. Without much effort, the US could destroy the Port of Kharg from which Iran exports 90% of its hydrocarbons.”

Iran is a bully.  Like every bully, it was testing America’s limits — pushing to see how far it could go.  They ate Obama’s lunch for eight years — they expected to do the same with Trump.  There is a valuable lesson from the investment realm Iran would do well to heed:  “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”

And — Trump is no Barack Obama.

Please follow the author on Twitter @williamlgensert

If I learned anything growing up in the Bronx in the 1970s and 1980s it is this: When someone says they are going to kill you, you should believe them.  Iranian leaders have been vowing, “Death to America” for four decades.  Successive presidents have striven mightily to not only ignore their declaration but also to maintain it lacked the solemnity of true intent. 

Why else would the smartest president ever, Barack Obama, through his sham legacy foreign policy accomplishment, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agree to cede Iran a secured path to developing nuclear weapons?

As a corollary, it is almost an aphorism to state that when someone keeps pushing, at some point, you must push back, or attrition will be your fate.

In this, the simplicity in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s combination statement/oath uttered in reference to an obscure phone call about military aid can’t be beaten.  He said, “Nobody pushed me.” 

Trump exercises great forbearance when it comes to military response.  He did so with Iran.  Even as it ratcheted up its provocations, he exercised due discretion.  But Iran crossed a line, and nobody pushes Trump.  When Iran killed an American, Trump killed dozens.  In response, they tried to overrun our embassy and Soleimani became a smear on a road to historical infamy.

Qassem Soleimani was in a Baghdad meeting with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of Kataib Hezb’allah, his new pet militia — mere miles away from our embassy, and immediately subsequent to the militia’s test-assault.  They were there to plot and execute more terrorist attacks on America.  Democrats ignore this.

One of these planned attacks was rumored to be a full-scale takeover of the embassy, as in Iran in 1979.  Incidentally, 1979 was the year Iran began its war on America.

Democrats like to pretend Obama didn’t spend eight years burning down the world:  Barry invited Russia back into Syria (after a 25-year absence); gave Syria to Iran and Russia; destroyed Libya (without congressional authorization); gave Iraq to Iran, while guaranteeing Iran a nuclear weapon (in a few years) through the JCPOA non-treaty; as well as financing its worldwide terrorism network (run by Soleimani) with a $150 billion gift.  Plus, $1.4 billion in pallets of cash was paid as ransom for the return nine kidnapped and humiliated American sailors. 

They also ignore that it was Barry who opened the floodgate of “refugees” and potential terrorists, now raping and pillaging their way across Europe, perhaps culturally transforming the continent forever (Barry was always big on “transformation”).

It’s almost as if Obama was working for Iran.

Trump’s assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis was a brilliant tactical move.  Done on a quiet road near the Baghdad International Airport to minimize collateral damage, it was a decapitation of Iran’s military; it was Iran’s “Yamamoto Moment.”  

Soleimani commanded the IRGC’s Quds Force, which is the primary instrument of control in Iran’s attempt at regional hegemony by establishing a Shiite Crescent land bridge to the Mediterranean Sea, as well as its weapon of choice to foment terror and exercise control over its satrapies, Lebanon, Syria, and now, Iraq.

General David Petraeus called Soleimani “our most significant and evil adversary.”  He also said Soleimani’s elimination was bigger than bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

After all, Baghdadi died like a dog in a cave after the demise of his “caliphate” and bin Laden was in hiding, spending his final days surfing the net for kiddy porn.  Soleimani was king of the terrorist world.  Yet as “austere” and “revered” Soleimani might have been, it didn’t matter to Trump, he counterpunched the Quds leader down the chute to hell. 

Trump does not lead from behind, he kicks behind.  With the killing of Soleimani, Trump has given notice to the mullahs that there will be no more tit-for-tat because from now on, America will do the escalating.

Somewhere across the globe Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong-un are destroying the SIM cards from their cell phones.

Of course, the Democrats and the media, having copyrighted the slogan, “Death to America” didn’t see it that way.  The Democrats’ sole interest is partisan political advantage, no matter how damaging to America.  And the media’s sole interest is advancing the interests of the Democratic Party.

They are up in arms about Congress not being notified before the attack.  Yet, everyone knows that had Trump notified Congress, there would have been several Democrats on the phone to the ayatollah within minutes. 

They’ve called the killing a “dangerous escalation.”  Dismissing the fact that Iran has been waging war on America for 40 years, they claim America will now be subject to vicious Iranian reprisals.

Spengler says it best:

“Iran revealed part of its strategic capability in September when Iranian infiltrators used ground-hugging cruise missiles and autonomous drones to destroy Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia. Iran tested its “Khorramshahr “ missile with an estimated 2,000-kilometer range in 2017. It is not known how effective the weapon is or how many Iran possesses. It is possible that Iran has enough ordnance to swamp American anti-missile defenses at its Doha airbase or to overcome the air defenses on an American warship in the Persian Gulf.”

He added this:

“[Iran’s] September attack on Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia exposed the weakness of US air defenses. The Patriot anti-missile system can’t shoot anything flying lower than 60 meters, and Iran has low-flying cruise missiles. A successful strike against Doha certainly figures in American calculations.”

But he also noted the potential options available to Trump:

“If Iran were to attack Doha, America’s response likely would be devastating. Two dozen missiles or bombing sorties could wipe out Iran’s economy in a matter of hours. Fewer than a dozen power plants generate 60% of Iran’s electricity, and eight refineries produce 80% of its distillates. A single missile strike could disable each of these facilities, and bunker-buster bombs of the kind that Israel used last month in Lebanon would entirely destroy them. Without much effort, the US could destroy the Port of Kharg from which Iran exports 90% of its hydrocarbons.”

Iran is a bully.  Like every bully, it was testing America’s limits — pushing to see how far it could go.  They ate Obama’s lunch for eight years — they expected to do the same with Trump.  There is a valuable lesson from the investment realm Iran would do well to heed:  “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”

And — Trump is no Barack Obama.

Please follow the author on Twitter @williamlgensert

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Posted on

New York’s jailbreak law already out of control

Weak-on-crime policies are rapidly showing their worst effects, as New York’s law abolishing bail enters its first full week. The results are so bad that even Democrats are now clamoring to save face and make changes to the law. Trump and Republicans would be wise to watch and learn from New York that they should not only jump off the criminal justice so-called “reform” bandwagon, but actually push policies getting tougher on criminals while relentlessly campaigning against those who side with violent criminals, gangsters, and drug traffickers.

Last week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that the NYPD is on high alert in light of tensions with Iran following the killing of Qassem Soleimani. However, the streets of the city are likely in greater danger from domestic criminals as a result of the jailbreak policies his party supported, and on that account, the police are actually on low alert out of fear of losing their jobs.

The NYPD announced that homicides jumped eight percent in 2019, and that is before the enactment of most of the pro-criminal laws. This comes on the heels of other data showing violent crime on the rise in parts of the city and on subways. That is very significant, given that murder rates fell every year since the Giuliani era in the early 1990s until the past few years. The great miracle of New York’s reduction in crime is being eaten away before our eyes, yet the politicians are focusing on making it tougher for police and prosecutors.

What can New York expect this year? Well, given that most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and the repeat offenders will now roam the streets, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to foresee the results. While many of those released without bail under the new law have just committed terrible crimes, what is often overlooked is that many are repeat offenders who have committed much worse crimes in the past.

For example, last Thursday, Tyquan Rivera of Rochester was released from jail after he was arrested on drug charges. The political system now treats drug trafficking as a minor crime, but the reality is that many people picked up for drugs had prior convictions for violent crimes. Locking them up on “lower”-level crimes is how we’ve kept the violent crime rate down for over two decades. Rivera is no different. In 2009, he was convicted of shooting Rochester police officer Anthony DiPonzio in the back of the head. Thanks to weak sentencing, he was out on the streets in 2016 to commit more crimes. Now that he has been picked up on drug charges, the new anti-bail law doesn’t take into account his serious criminal record. He will remain free indefinitely.

“Courts have been stripped of much of their discretion in determining whether a defendant should be held pending disposition of his/her case,” said Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley in a statement to CR. “Rather, the court now looks to a structure of Qualifying vs. Non-Qualifying offenses where dangerousness or threat to public safety cannot be considered. If a defendant is accused of a ‘non-qualifying’ offense, the court must release the defendant on his/her own recognizance or set non-monetary conditions of release.” Thus, in the case of Rivera, even though he was previously convicted for attempted murder of a cop and was arrested this time for allegedly selling fentanyl to undercover officers on two separate occasions, he walked out of the courtroom back to the streets.

How many more people as violent as Rivera will be let back onto the streets? It could be thousands. Think about all those people who rang in the new year with drunk driving and killed pedestrians or motorists. They are all out of jail. Farkell Hopkins was arrested for killing a pedestrian on New Year’s Eve while driving at twice the legal drinking limit. He was immediately released.

The jailbreak law applies retroactively to some of the worst criminals already in jail awaiting trial, too. In July, Paul Barbaritano was arrested in Albany for allegedly strangling a 29-year-old woman with a karate belt and then slitting her throat. However, because he is only charged with second-degree murder, he was released on January 2, despite his rap sheet, which includes a conviction for robbery.

Likewise, in North Westchester, a 27-year-old man who was caught last week breaking into a girl’s bedroom and was later found to have committed theft earlier that night was released. Under the current law, those crimes are considered low-level felonies.

Democrats are already facing such backlash from the bail “reform” bill that they are talking about modifying it. But rather than granting them cover to very partially fix one aspect of a more systemic problem, American citizens need to keep up the pressure and focus on the broader picture. Liberals in both parties are promoting radical leniencies across every part of the criminal justice system, not just in the context of pretrial jail time, but even in post-conviction prison time.

Last Friday, Governor Andrew Cuomo freed Monica Szlekovics, a woman who was convicted of a brutal murder in 1996. He pardoned her 23 years before she was even eligible for parole, citing her “extreme, ongoing physical and psychological abuse from her husband” as an excuse for her violent past, which include helping her husband with several kidnappings and murder. But the problem with liberals in states like California and New York is that they want to have it both ways with the plea of mental illness. They want to say criminals can’t be held culpable for their heinous crimes because they are incorrigibly ill, but at the same time they want to abolish confinement in psychiatric hospitals. They want them released on the streets to commit more crimes that they supposedly just can’t help committing.

This is the nightmare we will all live through in every major city unless we find a party willing to champion the victims and law-abiding citizens the way Reagan did. Several years’ worth of weak-on-crime policies are beginning to take their toll in many parts of the country.

At present, 100 percent of the focus on criminal justice issues, even in GOP-run states, is all about the criminal and how we can further reduce the prison population. We must remember Reagan’s admonishment that “for too long, the victims of crime have been the forgotten persons of our criminal justice system.” “Rarely do we give victims the help they need or the attention they deserve,” said Reagan in an April 8, 1981, proclamation creating National Crime Victims Week. “Yet the protection of our citizens — to guard them from becoming victims — is the primary purpose of our penal laws. Thus, each new victim personally represents an instance in which our system has failed to prevent crime. Lack of concern for victims compounds that failure.”

The time has come for Trump to jettison the Koch influence in his White House and return to his long-held view on criminal justice, which tracked closely with Reagan’s. As he wrote in his book, “The America We Deserve,” “The next time you hear someone saying there are too many people in prison, ask them how many thugs they’re willing to relocate to their neighborhood. The answer: None.”

The post New York’s jailbreak law already out of control appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com

Posted on

Judicial and Sanctuary Abuse

Judicial and Sanctuary AbuseThe Western World, which unprecedented prosperity is the natural result of individual freedom and limited government, is suffering remarkable political turmoil. On their long-running experiment authoritarians in all parties have become too strident, prompting popular uprisings. And to extend arbitrary control, an independent judiciary has been corrupted. Individuals such as General Flynn are threatened in a manner seen in Medieval Times.  And what San Francisco, for example, has been doing to the medieval concept of sanctuary has been astonishing. Political turmoil, even hysteria, began when ordinary folk finally woke up saying “No!” to unrelenting bureaucratic intrusion.  Regrettably, our governing classes have become, well, ungovernable. 

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/