Islamic terrorists and droves of illegal immigrants—mainly youths—have slipped into the United States through Mexico recently, but the deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) insists the “the border is more secure now than it has been in many, many years.” This delusional assessment brings to mind when President Obama’s first DHS secretary, Janet Napolitano, repeatedly proclaimed the border is as secure as it’s ever been amid escalating drug-cartel violence that spilled into the U.S. and a crisis of narcotics and human smuggling in the region.
Though the situation has only worsened, the administration continues to repeat the same lies even though a number of reports have confirmed that Islamic terrorists have entered the U.S. through the famously porous southern border and tens of thousands of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) keep crossing in without ever encountering federal agents before touching American soil. If anything the southern border has become a national security threat of epic proportions, illustrated by Judicial Watch’s reporting in the last few years. More on that after touching on the latest DHS distortion delivered a few days ago at a global travel and tourism summit in Dallas, Texas. Keep in mind that the event is a forum for business leaders in the travel and tourism industry and the goal is promoting travel. In fact, the forum’s motto was “travel beyond boundaries.”
Attending the event was Obama’s deputy secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. In a local newspaper report Mayorkas defended government efforts to stem the flow of illegal immigration, which is laughable considering a record number of illegal aliens have entered the U.S. in the last year. Then he said the United States is a “welcoming, embracing nation that does not operate in isolation.” This appeared to be an effort to justify the tens of thousands of illegal aliens that have crossed into the U.S. lately through Mexico, a huge chunk of them entering through Texas where the forum was held. Then came the kicker, that “the border is more secure not [Sic] than it has been in many, many years.” It was not clear in the news article if Mayorkas delivered the line with a straight face, but he proceeded to pile it on by adding that apprehensions have dropped significantly and that the U.S. works “very closely with our partners [in Mexico] to address illegal migration.” One last comment before we delve into the deputy secretary’s background. He said that the Obama administration has a “wonderful partnership with leaders in the Mexican government that are focused on security.”
Mayorkas initially served as director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for the Obama administration and came under fire for reportedly abusing his power to obtain visas for shady Chinese investors in a company run by Hillary Clinton’s brother. The scandal broke after Obama picked him to be second-in-command at DHS and the media obtained documents confirming that Mayorkas was named by the DHS Inspector General’s Office as a target in a probe involving the foreign investor program, known as EB-5, run by USCIS. One of the visas sought by Hillary’s brother (Anthony Rodham) was for the vice president of a Chinese telecommunications firm that’s been investigated by Congress for its ties to China’s intelligence agencies. Nevertheless, Mayorkas got his promotion even though he has a few other skeletons in his closet.
As Bill Clinton’s U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, Mayorkas resigned in shame after orchestrating the pardon of a major league drug trafficker. Mayorkas was largely responsible for freeing the drug dealer serving a 15-year prison sentence for operating sophisticated cocaine rings that stretched from California to Minnesota. The convicted drug dealer, Carlos Vignali, is the son of a wealthy political donor (Horacio Vignali) who convinced influential community leaders—mostly recipients of his generous contributions—to advocate for his son’s pardon. Mayorkas’ intervention was the most crucial and by far carried the most weight, Clinton officials later revealed. It also outraged federal prosecutors in Minneapolis, where Vignali was convicted for trying to sell 800 pounds of cocaine. After receiving numerous inquiries from Mayorkas about the case, the Minneapolis federal prosecutors wrote the Justice Department strongly opposing Vignali’s commutation but they were ignored.
This is relevant because it illustrates that Mayorkas is hardly a credible source. His recent assurances on Mexican border safety are insulting. In the last two years Judicial Watch has published a number of reports that prove the southern border is a dangerous region that has created a monstrous national security threat. In 2014 Homeland Security sources confirmed to JW that four Islamic terrorists were apprehended in 36 hours in McAllen and Pharr, Texas. Last summer, as an ongoing series on the porous southern border, JW reported that Mexican drug cartels are smuggling terrorists into the U.S. through a small Texas rural town near El Paso. The information came from sources on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. border. Also last year JW reported that five young Middle Eastern men were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol in an Arizona town situated about 30 miles from the border. Two of the men were carrying stainless steel cylinders in backpacks, according to JW’s law enforcement sources. JW also broke a story about a sophisticated narco-terror ring with connections running from El Paso to Chicago to New York City.
Earlier this year JW obtained State Department documents that show the U.S. government has known for more than a decade that “Arab extremists” are entering the country through Mexico with the assistance of smuggling network “cells.” Among them was a top Al Qaeda operative wanted by the FBI, according to the records that also reveal some Mexican smuggling networks actually specialize in providing logistical support for Arab individuals attempting to enter the United States.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Fascists want to take away our freedom of speech. So do the delicate little snowflakes infesting our institutions of “higher learning.” How much worse will it get over the next few years? Substantially worse, I fear.
In the above video, Bill Whittle recounts numerous Fascist attempts to shut down those with different ideas. I’ll not repeat what he says. Instead, I’ll point out a few other Fascist efforts.
Islamist Fascists
In line with its “misconception” that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, the Obama administration has consistently courted the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — which do everything they can to shut down all discussion of whether Islam is peaceful and tolerant and whether it should change. The Obama administration, following its lead, has ignored Muslim voices for reform.
What does Hillary Clinton think? Apparently that Islam is fine the way it is.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a different view.
As I noted here, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim. She had been scheduled to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University in April of 2014. However,
Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women, after protests from students and faculty.
The university said in a statement posted online that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.
“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” [Emphasis added.]
Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”
Ali was raised in a strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s. She has not commented publicly on the issue of the honorary degree.
. . . .
More than 85 of about 350 faculty members at Brandeis signed a letter asking for Ali to be removed from the list of honorary degree recipients. And an online petition created Monday by students at the school of 5,800 had gathered thousands of signatures from inside and outside the university as of Tuesday afternoon.
“This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students,” said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.
“But it’s not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs,” she said. “A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic.” [Emphasis added.]
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also got into the act:
“It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views.”
The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.
“This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy,” Joseph Lumbard, chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. “They feel unwelcome here.” [Emphasis added.]
Following the public announcement, the Muslim Students Association at Yale went through its usual routine, first seeking to have Ms. Hirsi Ali disinvited (though it disputes this), then to limit the subject matter of her speech, then to impose conditions on her speech that would stigmatize her. In the spirit of WFB himself, Lizardo stood firm.
The MSA routine worked at Brandeis; at Yale, not so much. Not this time.
Poor delicate little snowflakes. Isn’t it a shame that they might be exposed to new ideas that are alien to them? That they were not required to attend and listen to those ideas is, apparently, inconsequential. They did not anyone to listen to them.
Here’s a video of her remarks. The introductions are a trifle long and add little value. The questions she was asked at the end and her answers are, however, interesting. They begin at 55 minutes into the video.
She seemed to be speaking less to the “choir” and more to a broader audience which she was trying to convince. To that end, she was as conciliatory as she could be without abandoning her thesis that Islam is the religion of repression, submission and death, not peace; that it is highly dangerous to Western civilization, including our concepts of freedom and democracy. “Radical” Islam is rising, becoming even worse and it must be defeated.
Even to try to defeat Islam, we need to defeat the increasing efforts to eliminate freedom of speech at home in favor of speech that is politically and multiculturally correct and therefore not free. [Emphasis added.]
On April 7, 2015, Hirsi Ali spoke at the National Press Club. Here’s a video of her remarks on the Clash of Civilizations, largely based on her book Heretic, which I later reviewed here. There, she writes optimistically of the possibility (but not the probability) of an Islamic revolution, someday.
There is a clash of civilizations. Muslims in Western countries generally refuse to help the police prevent Islamic terror attacks, such as recently occurred in Brussels.
There is a reason why Israel razes the homes of terrorists. It is because Israelis know that a terrorist cannot plot and carry out an attack without the knowledge and help of his or her immediate relatives, and further, the entire community. Punitive home demolition is meant to serve as a deterrent, the idea being that a would-be terrorist’s family will fear losing their home and thus persuade him or her against the attack.
In fact, knowing that it “takes a village” to aid and abet a terrorist is precisely why the terrorists responsible for the Paris and recent Brussels bombings could operate “right under the noses” of their victims. And it is why some are calling for heightened scrutiny of Muslim communities across the West, and right here in the U.S., despite cries of Islamophobia.
The MailOnlinereports that police in Molenbeek — a district known for spawning jihadis like the France and Brussels attackers — have pleaded with local Muslims for help in finding the terror suspects only to have their pleas rebuffed.
Western nations which welcome and care for them are spit upon. “See something, say something” did not work before the San Bernardino Islamic attack. Perhaps those who saw something but said nothing remained silent because they feared being characterized as Islamophobes.
Here is a recent video of an interview with a teenage Yazidi girl who escaped the Islamic State. Is Islam the religion of peace and respect for females? For people of other religions?
In the unlikely event that any delicate little snowflakes watch it, will they be offended by its presence on You Tube, by the “lies” told by the Yazidi girl or by the truth of her statements?
Multicultural Fascists
Europe has many multicultural Fascists and Obama’s America has fewer. However, those who propagate the multicultural fantasy are winning. In the past, we sought immigrants who brought with them cultures compatible with ours. Now, Obama demands that we accept immigrants whose cultures of violence, drugs, gangs, crime and the like are not compatible. We have sanctuary cities where gang, other violence and drug smuggling and use are endemic. Although state efforts to enforce Federal immigration laws which the Obama administration refuses to enforce have been struck down by the judiciary, the Obama administration somewhat impotently challenged the sanctuary cities this year, only following pressure from the Congress.
Here is a video of remarks made by Victor Davis Hanson about one year ago on the travesty of “illiberal illegal immigration.” Illegal immigration breeds illegality across the board.
A transcript of his remarks is available here. Here’s just a short snippet:
[I]t’s a controversial topic. If I had said to you 20 years ago, 10 years ago, we’re going to get in a situation in the United States where 160,000 people are going to arrive at the border and break immigration law and we’re going to let them all in at once without any prior check, medical histories, you would think I was a right-wing conspiracist. If I had said to you, we’re going to have a president who is going to not only nullify existing federal immigration law, but on 22 occasions prior to that nullification warn us that he couldn’t nullify it, or, if I had said, he’s not only going to nullify federal immigration law, which he said would be unconstitutional, but that he is going to punish members of ICE, the border patrol, who follow existing law rather than his own unlawful existing order, I could go on, but you’d all think this was surreal, Orwellian, it couldn’t happen. Yet that’s the status quo as we look at it today.
Our borders are worse than porous; they are open and little effort is being made to keep criminals, drug dealers, gang members and other violent people out. While Obama has many “top” priorities, doing that is not among them.
Cultures are either consciously abandoned, or consciously enforced. The theory of multiculturalism has always been a tonic for simpletons, since it celebrates the perpetuation and imposition of an incompatible culture, still being practiced by those who carry it, upon a host culture with which it is mutually exclusive. Multiculturalism is entirely subversive. It is intended to force one or more cultures upon the hosts who do not want or need them. Since both cultures cannot successfully coexist within the host, which has its own successful working culture, the purpose of the exercise has always been fraudulent. The “melting pot” concept worked not because of the concept of multiculturalism, but as testament against it. Those who came here in our parents’ and grandparents’ generation consciously chose to abandon the cultures they left in favor of the American culture. They became Americans, embracing one culture.
If one was being less generous than to call multiculturalism a tonic for simpletons, it would be more accurate to say that modern leftist multiculturalism is actually a weapon. Its purpose is not to enhance the host, but to consume it. If the host’s culture is peaceful, it has no use for malcontents who insist upon the dominance of their native culture. Malcontents, in the form of angry and entitled guests, foment chaos and disorder. And yet, the leftists insist that we demonstrate our cultural superiority by abandoning the superiority of our own culture and importing incompatible languages, traditions, practices, and morals.
Here’s a snapshot of our current Southern border by Sharyl Attkisson:
Conclusions
The delicate little snowflakes who demand safe spaces from reality in what were once institutions of higher learning seem to be increasing in number. They are our next generation and will soon begin to elect those with whose milquetoast views they agree. It will be a sad day for America when our nation mirrors those “educational” institutions. Solutions? I have none to offer, other than the development of backbones by their university administrators and teachers; perhaps even by their own parents. Perhaps some little snowflakes will be told, “If you don’t want to be exposed to views inconsistent with those you already hold, don’t come here.”
Living in America should be an honor not granted those who despise and abuse her by coming illegally, by illegally bringing crime and violence or by supporting those who do. Falsely characterizing Islam as the religion of peace and tolerance should not be “who we are” as Obama claims. Most of us are not deluded fools, I hope.
Oh well. Somehow we got Obama as the Commander in Chief. Twice.
This message was posted just eight days before the recent Islamic attack in Brussels, Belgium:
Once upon a time there were people who naively fantasized about how all the incompatible cultures of the world were going to magically blend, weaving a beautiful tapestry of colors and variations. They called this “Multiculturalism”. Increasingly, the tapestry is made up of glass shards and human remains. At what point do we begin to tally the lives ruined or taken by members of all the “guest” cultures from members of all the host cultures? Pretty soon, I hope, since that seems to be a recurring element of multiculturalism. Wherever you see one, you see the other.
Cultures are either consciously abandoned, or consciously enforced. The theory of multiculturalism has always been a tonic for simpletons, since it celebrates the perpetuation and imposition of an incompatible culture, still being practiced by those who carry it, upon a host culture with which it is mutually exclusive. Multiculturalism is entirely subversive. It is intended to force one or more cultures upon the hosts who do not want or need them. Since both cultures cannot successfully coexist within the host, which has its own successful working culture, the purpose of the exercise has always been fraudulent. The “melting pot” concept worked not because of the concept of multiculturalism, but as testament against it. Those who came here in our parents’ and grandparents’ generation consciously chose to abandon the cultures they left in favor of the American culture. They became Americans, embracing one culture.
If one was being less generous than to call multiculturalism a tonic for simpletons, it would be more accurate to say that modern leftist multiculturalism is actually a weapon. Its purpose is not to enhance the host, but to consume it. If the host’s culture is peaceful, it has no use for malcontents who insist upon the dominance of their native culture. Malcontents, in the form of angry and entitled guests, foment chaos and disorder. And yet, the leftists insist that we demonstrate our cultural superiority by abandoning the superiority of our own culture and importing incompatible languages, traditions, practices, and morals.
Europe is being forced to account for its misguided multiculturalism on a grand scale, as it is being invaded and conquered voluntarily by the proponents and carriers of multiculturalism. Belgium, which prides itself on its diversity and multiculturalism, has been duly thanked this week by those it welcomed and upon whom it gifted its liberties and freedoms. France has also recently been thanked. So too has been the UK, Germany, Sweden, and all the rest, as their own cultures are being swept aside to accommodate those who intend to assassinate the culture, rather than assimilate.
Increasingly, among the practitioners of aggressive multiculturalism, their gratitude is often measured in lives destroyed and the quantity of blood spilled to overwhelm the host. It is measured in rapes, and violent crimes, and pedophilia, and human trafficking, and all of the niceties of the guest cultures that have been blindly welcomed or ignored by the host, whose tolerance was only exceeded by its stupidity.
Indeed, Americans have been thanked and continue to be thanked by all sorts of carriers of multiculturalism. The open southern border, an instrument of forced multiculturalism, has brought us gangs, and criminals, and drugs, and murderers, and cartels, all of which are simply part of the cultures of the countries from which their carriers traveled to enrich us with their superiority. The left so values these contributions, including the senseless murders of Americans by repeat offenders who prey on American citizens with the tacit permission of our government, that they proudly tout their “sanctuary cities”, which aid and abet the predators, while sacrificing the prey in the name of tolerance and smug superiority.
We have been similarly thanked by radical Islamists, who have bombed us, shot us, and terrorized us for not surrendering to their culture, with all the superiority that comes with honor killings, female mutilation, subjugation of women, beheadings, throwing gays from rooftops, genocide and hatred of everyone and everything that is incompatible with their culture. Our government so approves of this that it facilitates the “migration”/importation of even more carriers of such culture in the form of Syrian Muslim immigrants whom it cannot vet, many of whom travel on forged visas created by ISIS to permit them to enter target countries undeterred.
Even among Americans, who are free and have unlimited opportunities available to them, we are beginning to understand the extent of the anti-American subcultures that have arisen, and are working just as diligently to defeat us. There is within our own borders a rising culture of anti-Constitutional, anti-American aggression and fascism, perpetrated upon Americans by other Americans who are so assured of their own moral and intellectual superiority that they have no need of laws that constrain their dominance over their fellow citizens. They are smarter and better than the rest of us, because they say so.
At the same time, we have a cultural movement embodied by innumerable young adults, trained to be perpetual crybabies and losers, convinced of their entitlement to steal the property and money of others, whom they mindlessly hate for successes that they cannot fathom, animated by puppeteers who themselves are paragons of failure. They think nothing of employing violence against those whom they have never met and do not know, but hate entirely.
Make no mistake. The anti-American subculture growing in the United States is surprisingly deeply rooted and has even more potential to destroy this country than anything the left can import. They are carriers of their pathology, and they use our politics and media to infect. Like the other corrosive cultures, theirs celebrates lawlessness, injustice, and violence because they advance the goals of fear and intimidation. The extent of violence is the only remaining question mark, since most anti-American culturalists have not yet engaged in open homicide of their ideological enemies. The obvious exception is the Black Lives Matter subculture, which long ago jumped over that line and was rewarded by their allies with publicity and fake credibility.
Will relative restraint continue if a candidate is nominated for president who recognizes the cancer that the anti-American culturalists represent to our national survival? Don’t count on it. These are the ideological children of Bill Ayers. We will transition from a war of words to the inevitable war of violence, because they will start it to survive, confident they won’t be blamed. Watch what happens this summer in Cleveland, by which time it will have begun, and how it is covered. Either we win, or they do, but our cultures are mutually exclusive.
Immigration is the new “No Nukes/Save the Whales” movement, only with more body bags.
After the mass murder committed by Muslims in San Bernardino, which came on the heels of the mass murder committed by Muslims in Paris, Donald Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration.
Explaining the idea on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: “Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. … We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant.”
Trump’s reference to London’s no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was “unhinged,”
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called him “foolish,” and former vice president Dick Cheney said Trump’s remarks went “against everything we stand for and believe in.” (Based on Trump’s crushing primary victories, Cheney is no longer qualified to say what “we” believe in.)
To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London’s police said, “Mr. Trump could not be more wrong,” and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump’s comments “utter nonsense.”
Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:
UK Daily Mail: ‘TRUMP’S NOT WRONG — WE CAN’T WEAR UNIFORM IN OUR OWN CARS’: Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So ‘Radicalised’ They Are No-Go Areas
The Sun: ‘THERE ARE NO-GO AREAS IN LONDON’: Policemen Back Trump’s Controversial Comments
UK Daily Express: ‘TRUMP IS RIGHT!’ Police Say Parts of Britain Are No-Go Areas due to ISIS Radicalisation
Then, in January of this year, Trump talked specifically about the Muslim invasion of Brussels on the Maria Bartiromo show. “There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. … There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Sharia law … There is something bad going on.”
The New York Times headlined a story on the interview: “Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels.” News is no longer about communicating information; it’s about imparting an attitude. Trump is rude, so whether he’s right is irrelevant. As the saying goes, “Better dead than rude.”
Indignant Belgians took to Twitter, the Times reported, “deploying an arsenal of insults, irony and humor, including images of Belgium’s beloved beer and chocolate.” Liberals have gone from not understanding jokes to not understanding English. When Trump talked about unassimilated Muslim immigrants demanding Sharia law, I don’t think he was knocking Belgium’s beer and chocolate.
Rudi Vervoort, the president of the Brussels region (who evidently survived this week’s bombing), rebuked Trump, saying, “We can reassure the Americans that Brussels is a multicultural city where it is good to live.”
After multiculturalism struck this week, Vervoort said, “I would like to express my support to the victims of the attacks of this morning …” Twitter bristled with supportive hashtags, the Belgian flag and professions of solidarity. The Times editorialized: “Brussels, Europe, the world must brace for a long struggle against this form of terrorism.”
All this would be perfectly normal if we were talking about an earthquake or some other natural disaster — something humans have no capacity to prevent. But Muslims pouring into our countries and committing mass murder isn’t natural at all. It’s the direct result of government policy.
It’s as if the government were dumping rats in our houses, and then, whenever someone died of the plague, those same government officials issued heartfelt condolences, Twitter lit up with sympathetic hashtags and the Times editorialized about effective rodent control, but no one ever bothered to say, Hey! Maybe the government should stop putting rats in our houses!
When people are killing in the name of their religion, it’s not an irrelevancy to refuse to keep admitting more practitioners of that religion.
But this is the madness that has seized Europe and America — a psychosis Peter Brimelow calls “Hitler’s revenge.”
Apparently, what we have learned from Hitler is not: Don’t kill Jews. To the contrary, the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews are … Muslims.
What we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Don’t attempt to seize hegemonic control over entire continents. The only people vowing to conquer the world are … Muslims.
And what we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Beware violent uprisings of angry young men. The only hordes of violent, angry young men are, again … Muslims. (And Trump protesters.)
But instead of learning our lesson and recoiling with horror at this modern iteration of Nazism, we welcome the danger with open arms — because the one and only lesson we’ve learned from Hitler is: DON’T DISCRIMINATE!
Trump bashes GOP for spending millions on ads targeting him
GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has gotten support from a local U.S. Border Patrol union ahead of rallies and other campaign events Saturday in the border state of Arizona, which holds key primaries Tuesday.
Local 2544 said Trump asked for the endorsement Friday and that officials responded by saying he is the only 2016 White House candidate to “publicly expressed his support” of the Border Patrol’s mission and it agents and that he has been “an outspoken candidate on the need for a secure border.”
However, Art Del Cueto, president of the Tucson-based union, made clear that he would adhere to the larger National Border Patrol Council’s practice of not endorsing presidential candidates.
The endorsement comes as Trump holds a town hall-style meeting near Scottsdale, Arizona, on Saturday morning, followed by a big rally in the Phoenix Convention Center.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio — the self-styled “America’s Toughest Sheriff” who has already endorsed Trump — is scheduled to participate in the rallies.
Protesters are already trying to stop the Trump events, including blocking a major road to one event Saturday morning.
(Why are these Latin American nations less welcoming to Cuban refugees than The United States? And, in view of Obama’s reset of relations with Cuba, why do so many Cubans want to leave Cuba? — DM)
The first air-lifted migrants disembark
ON The DAY that a Chiriqui resident fed up with accumulating filth around his home, was videoed attacking a Cuban migrant with a machete and only days after Panama and Costa Rica declared that the airlift of thousands of stranded Cuban migrants en route to the United States had been completed, another 1,000 Cuban migrants are on the Panama-Costa Rica border, according to an EFE news agency report.
“In Chiriqui, the province that borders Costa Rica, there are about 1,000 Cubans,” waiting to continue their journey northward, said Osiris Abrego, the program coordinator for Caritas International, a Catholic Church agency told EFE on Thursday March 17..
The Cuban migrant crisis exploded last Nov. 15 when Nicaragua, decided to close its border, claiming risks to its security and sovereignty, which caused almost 8,000 Cubans to accumulate in Costa Rica.
The Costa Rican government stopped issuing visas to the islanders in mid-December and said it was no longer able to admit any more people. As a result, some 1,000 Cubans were left stranded in Panama, forcing the Panamanian government to strike its own accord with Mexico to fly the migrants northward.
What at the time was believed to be the last of those Cubans – a group of 300 migrants – were flown from Panama to Mexico on a commercial flight on March 15 when Panama declared the airlift operation, of nine flights over three weeks, to be completed.
Now, however, it seems that the flow of Cubans has not ended. Meanwhile, conditions for the latest group of 1,000 migrants on the Costa Rica border are worse than those faced by the Cubans who came before them, as the Panama has ceased providing them with humanitarian aid, according to Caritas International.
The migrants also cannot be airlifted to Mexico, because the accord between Panama and Mexico applied only to the Cubans left stranded in Panama when Costa Rica stopped issuing them visas and does not apply to any new arrivals.
According to Caritas, not only is the Panamanian government not providing humanitarian aid, the government is attempting to dismantle their encampments.
T e director of Panama’s National Migration Service, Javier Carrillo, denied those claims and said that the migrants were being cared for.
“Of course we are helping them. Anyway, Costa Rica is causing the problem [by not issuing them visas], What can we do? We cannot force another country to receive foreigners,” Carrillo told EFE.
Cuban nationals receive preferential immigration status upon setting foot in the United States under the Cuban Adjustment Act, commonly known as the “wet foot, dry foot” policy.
But warming relations between the United States and Cuba have led to fears on the island that the policy may come to an end, sparking an unprecedented wave of Cuban migration that hasn’t been seen in decades.
(The views expressed in this article (aside from those espoused by my imaginary guest author, with whom no rational person agrees) are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) guest author, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of ConfusionUtopia. He is a founding member of Climate Change Causes Everything Bad, a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee.He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own observations.
As any fool knows, saying things that upset folks is destructive to our peace and tranquility. No patriot would do that. As the Boston Globe observed on March 17th, true patriots can not and should not permit it.
Donald Trump slams protesters at his rallies as “thugs” but, as usual, the unhinged GOP presidential front-runner is dead wrong:
They’re patriots.
. . . .
With Trump nearly sweeping this week’s primaries, those rallies will become more hostile toward anyone pushing against his hideous rhetoric. Yet those patriots will still come, not just because they oppose Trump but for the love of their country which is being shoved toward the abyss. As poet Adrienne Rich wrote in “An Atlas of the Difficult World”:
A patriot is one who wrestles/ for the soul of her country/ as she wrestles for her own being.
Trump has been endorsed by Will Quigg, 48, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. So has Hillary Clinton, but that’s as different as night is from day; we all know that she is not a racist. The KKK endorsement of Trump shows, beyond dispute, that he is a vile racist. That’s why he despises our President and everything for which we stand.
Trump reminds me of the hateful Britainophobes who mocked Native Americans by wearing their quaint native garb to throw precious tea, violently, into Boston Harbor. For shame!
Trump hatefully complains that Islam is not the religion of peace and that since it is a violent religion Muslims should not be permitted even to visit the United States until it can be determined which are peaceful and which are not. Hogwash! Muslims are just as peaceful as Methodists. They love little children more than Methodists, particularly little girls, and marry them at what Trump probably thinks is too early an age — often at the age of ten. It’s their culture, so there’s nothing wrong with it and we should respect it. Isn’t this a pretty little bride? She looks so happy!
Muslims don’t occupy a country that isn’t theirs like filthy Jews do in Palestine. They don’t try to take over mosques sacred to Islam.
Palestine, unlike Israel, does not practice apartheid. Although Israel has nukes, Iran recently promised not to develop nuclear weapons. Trump, despite his claims to be a master negotiator, would never have got that deal; Obama, a very modest person, did despite obstructions put in his path by Israel and some Republicans.
Not all Jews are bad, of course: a major Jewish group warned that Trump is dangerous. As noted in the immediately linked article, the warning
came amid an impassioned debate in the American Jewish community around Trump’s plans to address an audience of over 18,000 next Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.
Who knows what might happen if Trump were to address that group. Might he claim, as he often does, that the peaceful Palestinians, not Jews, are to blame for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine? Perhaps some of his antisemitic bullies might assault members of the audience. They might bring not only knives but guns as well! Remember, President Obama warned against bringing even knives to a gun fight!
Trump complains that our borders are not “secure.” He is stupid, ignorant and just plays on the fear of other racists. Hillary Clinton knows that the borders are secure.
PHOENIX — The United States has done a “really good job” of securing the border between Arizona and Mexico, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said in an exclusive interview Thursday.
“I think we’ve done a really good job securing the border,” she said. “I think that those who say we haven’t are not paying attention to what was done the last 15 years under President (George W.) Bush and President (Barack) Obama.”
Clinton said the federal government has added both border officers and obstructions, while the number of people attempting to cross the border has dropped.
“Immigration from Mexico has dropped considerably,” she said. ”It’s just not happening anymore.”
Lies, lies, lies. It’s lies all the way down for Trump
The protestors at Trump rallies do not want to silence him, as some far-right nuts have complained. They only want to make him stop saying things that offend them; there’s a big difference, as any fool knows. Like everyone else with two brain cells, we need our safe spaces and he violates our constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by refusing to let us have them. Even the music played at Trump rallies is authoritarian and disgusting. That’s why we attend and protest at Trump rallies.
Trump is Hitler. All Republican candidates for president have been Hitlers for many, many years. Hitlerism is the foul soup in which they are conceived, born and raised. It’s high time to throw out the soup and Republicans along with it. Hillary will do that, and more.
*****************
Editor’s comments
As a courtesy to Senator Librul, I inserted all of the links in his article. The presence of supporting links is about the only difference between his screed and those of Democrats and the Republican elite (but I repeat myself) disparaging Trump for stuff he has not done and does not do; for what they claim he is and not for what he is.
It’s high time for us to take America back from those who have been trying to destroy her. She belongs to We the People, not to the Democrat or Publican party bosses. Never forget.
Obama did not build our nation. Our ancestors did and it’s our inheritance.
For whom would the pioneers in the video vote were they alive now? Our “leaders” who sit in Washington, D.C., break their promises and take our money to finance their reelection campaigns so they can continue the process? Those who have weakened our nation and made her a second class world power? Those who elevate political correctness and multiculturalism above reality? Those who rewrite our history so that they can condemn it? I don’t think so. Which candidates do you think they would support?
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Univision‘s Jorge Ramos once again claimed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump called all Mexicans “rapists.” It’s a theme often forwarded by opinion reporters, as well as supposedly unbiased journalists. Other common narratives include that Trump is “racist,” “anti-immigrant,” “anti-Muslim,” “anti-Hispanic,” and “anti-Mexican.”
For his part, Trump claims to be pro-immigration and says he loves Hispanics and Muslims.
One can take issue with the accuracy of many statements made by Trump and other presidential candidates, both Democrats and Republicans. But in this instance, journalists are claiming to know what’s in the candidate’s heart and mind, and are stating their opinions as if it’s fact. Are the portrayals of Trump by news reporters accurate?
Discussion
The news media often conflates illegal immigration and legal immigration, as if they are one in the same. But for the sake of accuracy, the distinction must be noted. The nation is split on many immigration questions yet decisive on the general issue of illegal immigration: in a CBS Newspoll, 84% of Americans viewed illegal immigration as a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem. In other words: most Americans support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. That’s the same view Trump has expressed.
Is it fair for the press to call Trump (and, by implication, 84% of Americans) “anti-immigrant” for opposing illegal immigration, while supporting legal immigration?
The media makes a similar conflation when it comes to Trump’s remarks about criminal illegal immigrants in the U.S. Referring to illegal immigrants from Mexico, Trump stated, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” On another occasion, Trump said he was not only singling out illegal immigrants from one country. “I’m not just saying Mexicans, I’m talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists and they’re coming to this country.”
On these points, Trump’s statements are factually indisputable, according to the Obama administration’s own figures. For example, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that 2013 and 2014 alone, it set loose in the U.S. more than 66,500 illegal immigrant criminals who had been arrested in the U.S. for additional crimes and had over 166,000 convictions among them: 30,000 for drunk or drugged driving, 414 kidnappings, 11,301 rapes or other types of assaults and 395 homicides. In a fairly short time period, ICE reported 2,423 of those illegal immigrant criminals had already been rearrested and convicted of new crimes in the U.S.– including felonies and gang offenses. These are difficult statistics to face, but there’s no reason to doubt the Obama administration’s veracity in providing them. Yet, the news media do not accuse the Obama administration of being “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “anti-Hispanic” or “anti-Mexican” in reporting these statistics. Is it fair to use those pejoratives against Trump when he refers to the trends?
Further, the press often ignores or dismisses Trump’s own pro-Mexican statements as he repeatedly differentiates between illegal immigrants and legal immigration, and states that not all illegal immigrants are criminals. For example, referring to illegal immigrants, after Trump stated, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” he added, “And some I assume are good people.” He has also said of Mexicans: “The good people come, and they’re great people. They’re better than good people. I love the Mexican people. They have tremendous spirit. They have tremendous vibrance and life,” and “Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it…I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it.”
The case of Muslims is less clear. Trump has singled out Muslims in advocating for a temporary ban on immigration into the U.S. Does that qualify him as being unequivocally “anti-Muslim,” as the press often states? That may be a matter of opinion. But Trump has not advocated to remove or ban Muslims who are already in the U.S., and has stated that his proposed temporary immigration ban would be with the goal of resuming Muslim immigration once screening deficiencies acknowledged by the FBI can be corrected. “I love the Muslims. I think they’re great people,” Trump has said.
While media portrayals might have one believe Trump holds fringe anti-immigration views, polling consistently shows a majority of Americans often align with his views on key issues. A Rasmussen Reports survey last month found sixty-one percent (61%) of voters think the government is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are in this country illegally, consistent with surveys of years. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters who consider border control to be more important than providing a pathway to citizenship believe that providing that pathway for illegal immigrants will just encourage more to come illegally. Most voters continue to believe the current policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the U.S. illegally. Most also continue to oppose President Obama’s plan to exempt millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. Seventy-two percent (72%) believe the federal government is not aggressive enough in finding those who have overstayed their visas and sending them home.
Conclusion
Because he singled out Muslims for a temporary immigration ban, it’s fair to question whether Trump has expressed some anti-Muslim-immigrant views. But fair reporting is obliged to include the context that Trump has said the ban would be temporary; and that he has not proposed action against all Muslims, against Muslims already in the U.S. or against Muslim Americans; and he has stated that he loves–not hates–Muslims. The public can draw its own conclusion.
On other key points: Trump is correct when referring to some illegal immigrants as “rapists” and “murderers.” Many in the media lampoon his statements without acknowledging that they’re factually correct, and they allow others to incorrectly characterize Trump’s comments, unchecked.
Trump distinguishes between legal and illegal immigration, supporting the former and opposing the latter, as do most Americans. The press often advances a false narrative as if there’s no distinction.
Finally, Trump’s mother was an immigrant, his ex-wife is an immigrant born in Czechoslovakia, his current wife an immigrant born in Slovenia, and his children are children of an immigrant parent. It’s difficult to rationally claim Trump is anti-immigrant. It would be accurate, however, to state that he’s anti-illegal-immigrant.
Trump’s opponents and critics are generally free to offer their opinions as to his leanings. However, reporters have jumped onto the opinion bandwagon at times, making mischaracterizations that are contrary to the evidence. To advance an agenda, the press seeks to falsely equate protecting the U.S. border with being anti-immigration. Regardless of how reporters personally feel about Trump, it’s important that they remain true to the facts in order to preserve the integrity of journalism.
For failing to do so, these cumulative claims about Trump are given Two Little Devils.
Pope Francis injected himself into the 2016 election yesterday by blasting Republican frontrunner Donald Trump as “not Christian” for promising to build a wall along the southern border to keep illegal aliens out of the United States.
These inflammatory comments from a pampered absolute monarch who lives in a walled fortress protected by armed Swiss Guards came after his anti-American publicity stunt at the U.S.-Mexico border careened out of control — and they were soon answered by Trump.
They also came days after Trump criticized the pope for planning to visit the border to promote lawlessness. The presidential candidate said Francis didn’t understand “the danger of the open border we have with Mexico.” He added, “I think Mexico got him to [visit the border] because Mexico wants to keep the border just the way it is because they’re making a fortune and we’re losing.”
Although Vatican City, recognized as a sovereign nation, has very strict immigration controls, Francis spent Wednesday afternoon blasting U.S. immigration policy and condemning capitalism during a mass strategically located near the fence that separates Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, from El Paso, Texas. He previously hoped to make an even bigger spectacle of himself by walking in solidarity with other aliens across the border, but U.S. officials nixed that plan.
At the service Francis honored “migrants who have perished trying to reach the United States just a stone’s throw away.” The pope also blessed crosses beside “shoes of migrants who died,” adding “No more death! No more exploitation!”
Sounding like a Marxist community organizer, Francis blamed U.S. immigration policies for causing a “humanitarian crisis” and declared that “the flow of capital cannot decide the flow of people.”
The pope erected a cross in memory of border crossers who have died invading the United States.
He said these people took:
“A step, a path filled with terrible injustice, enslavement, kidnappings, extortion. Many of our brothers are the fruits of the business of human trafficking. We cannot deny a humanitarian crisis, which in recent years has seen the migration of millions of people.”
Columnist Ben Shapiro was having none of it:
“The reason for the humanitarian crisis driving people north is the corrupt anti-capitalist governance so common to Latin America – the same sort of governance the pope believes is apparently more godly than the capitalism drawing people like a magnet to the United States. So the same system the pope decries is the system the pope wants inundated with victims of those who oppose that system. How ironic.”
Francis, a Jesuit from Argentina, has thrown his lot in with anarchists, anti-nationalists, neo-communists, and the radical libertarians of the open-borders movement who cry that the existence of borders in themselves is fundamentally unjust. Christians and communists are the same, Francis has also said. Communists are closeted Christians who “have stolen our flag.” This pope has even formed political alliances with the community organizers of the activist Left in the U.S., Obama administration officials, and radical activists like Naomi Klein, a college dropout and Red diaper baby whose mother made documentaries about Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky.
Francis is preoccupied with radical left-wing ideology, not empirical facts.
Anyone with eyes knows that the proliferation of capitalism over the past two decades has lifted a billion people out of dire poverty — and in coming decades is projected to rescue another billion from pauperism — but Francis robotically slams global capitalism, or “globalization” as the Left calls it, foolishly blaming markets for poverty. Markets, not handouts, accomplish humanitarian feats that the Bishop of Rome’s church could never, ever hope to match.
Francis embraces liberation theology, which Shapiro calls “essentially a mashup of Christianity and Marxist redistributionism — a theology in which capitalists must be blamed for the world’s ills and then forced to absorb all of its problems.”
“All of this would appall Pope John Paul II, who said, ‘This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth does not tally with the church’s catechism.’ Pope Benedict XVI said liberation theology was a ‘singular heresy’ and ‘fundamental threat’ to the Catholic Church.”
On the flight back to Rome after the five-city visit to Mexico, a reporter asked a question that allowed the papal mudslinging to begin.
Trump described Francis as “a political man” and “a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics,” the Reuters scribe said. Trump, he noted, has promised to construct 2,500 kilometers of wall along America’s southern border and deport 11 million illegal aliens.
“Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus,'” His Holiness quipped.
“At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. … I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.”
Trump fired back.
“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president because this would not have happened,” the real estate mogul said.
“For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful,” he added.
This kind of conflict between the church and American politicians was inevitable.
Like plenty of Protestant denominations, the Catholic church in the U.S. has been overrun by radical left-wingers.
The ACORN-loving Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), the charitable arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), is politically extreme and anti-American to its core. CCHD is aggressively pro-open borders and American Catholic bishops have conducted plenty of their own publicity stunts at the U.S.-Mexico border urging the United States to let in anybody who wants to come to America.
Long mocked as the “Catholic Campaign to Help Democrats,” the charity funds the Industrial Areas Foundation, which was founded by Saul Alinsky, and other dangerous Alinsky-inspired groups including the Gamaliel Foundation and Direct Action and Research Training Institute (DART). CCHD has funded voter drives benefitting politicians who support un-Catholic causes such as abortion-on-demand. In his career as a community organizer, Barack Obama worked on at least one project underwritten by CCHD.
The current pope’s radicalism, which some Roman Catholics say merely constitutes adherence to the church’s so-called social justice teachings, is nothing new in the world of Catholicism.
Alinsky, who infiltrated many Catholic parishes in his day, would definitely approve of Pope Francis.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments