Posted tagged ‘Hillary Clinton and immigration’

ICE Union Chief: Hillary Will ‘Unleash Violent Cartels’ Into U.S. Communities

November 4, 2016

ICE Union Chief: Hillary Will ‘Unleash Violent Cartels’ Into U.S. Communities, Daily Caller, Alex Pfeiffer. November 4, 2016

illegalalien

Federal statistics show that “92 percent of the MS-13 affiliated aliens arrested were illegal aliens. Of those, 16 percent had entered illegally at least twice.” The report also continued to say, “While MS-13 affiliated aliens made up 13 percent of all the arrests, they accounted for 35 percent of the murderers arrested by ICE.”

******************

The head of the union representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers said in a statement Friday afternoon that Hillary Clinton’s immigration plan will endanger American communities.

“ICE officers on the front lines are witnessing a deluge of illegal immigration unlike anything we have seen before,” said Chris Chrane, president of the National Immigration And Customs Enforcement Council. The union has endorsed Donald Trump, Chrane continued on to say.

“Our officers are being ordered to release recent border-crossers with no idea what their intentions are or what they are planning. Gang members, drug cartels and violent smugglers are taking advantage of the situation and threatening American communities,” he said.

“The influx is overwhelming public resources, especially in poor communities — including Hispanic communities and immigrant communities bearing the economic brunt of the illegal immigration surge. Hillary’s pledge for ‘open borders’ will mean disaster for our country, and turn the present border emergency into a catacylsm. Hillary’s plan would unleash violent cartels and brutal transnational gangs into US communities and cause countless preventable deaths,” the ICE officer added.

A report released Friday by the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for decreased immigration, highlighted the increase of multi-national immigration gangs in the U.S., such as MS-13. CIS wrote, “Over a 10-year period (2005-2014) ICE arrested approximately 4,000 MS-13 members, leaders, and associates. This represents about 13 percent of all gang members they arrested nationwide (31,000) during that period.”

Federal statistics show that “92 percent of the MS-13 affiliated aliens arrested were illegal aliens. Of those, 16 percent had entered illegally at least twice.” The report also continued to say, “While MS-13 affiliated aliens made up 13 percent of all the arrests, they accounted for 35 percent of the murderers arrested by ICE.”

 

INTO THE FRAY:The elections are for President—not Pope

November 4, 2016

INTO THE FRAY:The elections are for President—not Pope, Israel National News, Dr. Martin Sherman, November 4, 2016

(The article seems principally directed to Never Trumpers. –DM)

The election next week of Clinton, who is firmly committed, indeed virtually compelled, to continue with Obama policies is more than likely to make that course irretrievable, and the US—much like several luckless EU countries—will be set on an inevitable downward spiral toward third-world status…from which a growing portion of its population hoped to extricate itself

Given the stakes, this seems almost inconceivable. Trump should be elected not because of what may occur if he is, but because of what will almost certainly occur if he is not. He should not be judged on what his incumbency might achieve, but what his incumbency must prevent.

So in weighing the grim alternatives, the US electorate would do well to bear in mind that these elections are for the Presidency not the Papacy.  They must choose who is best suited (or the least unsuited) to be President – not the Pope.

*********************

You knooow…C’mon Who do you think is out of touch?– Barack Obama, commenting derisively on Hillary Clinton, 2008

“Hillary Clinton, she’ll say anything and change nothing” – I am Barack Obama…and I approve this messageFrom a 2008 Obama election campaign ad.

The fate of the republic rests on your shoulders. The fate of the world is teetering and you…are going to have to make sure that we push it in the right direction.– Barack Obama, urging voters to support Hillary Clinton, November 3, 2016

It would, indeed, be in no way an exaggeration to describe next week’s US elections as perhaps the most significant in recent history, a  real “fork in the road” for the future of the over 200-hundred year Union.

Waning adherence to founding principles?

This Union proved to be a remarkable socio-political creation. Largely because of its founding values, as articulated in its founding documents and later amendment’s, it developed into the most influential, prosperous powerful country on the planet.

Indeed, in great measure, by holding fast to those values, it managed to maintain its position of primacy since the early decades of the last century.

But in the last decade this began to change perceptibly. Adherence to the underlying fundamentals–its Anglo-Saxon cultural roots and its Judeo-Christian (indeed Judeo-Protestant) ethical foundations—has begun to wane.  Identification with, and belief in, what made America, America began to erode and fray—and with it, the coherence of the identity that made it exceptional.

Clearly, it was not America’s natural resources and mineral wealth that generated its unparalleled success. After all, numerous other countries have been endowed by nature with vast riches but none of them were able to harness the enormous creativity and productive energy of their population on a similar scale/intensity as America did.

What set America apart was the manner in which it managed to mobilize its human resources and facilitate opportunity for talent, ingenuity and industry to flower.

There is no way to decouple this remarkable accomplishment from the original organizing principles set out for the nation at its founding. Similarly, there is no way to decouple these organizing principles from the civilizational foundations from which they were drawn.

Clearly then, as America of today diverges increasingly from identification with those principles and civilizational foundations, and the spirit that they were imbued with, it will increasingly jeopardize the key to its own exceptionalism—and the exceptional achievement that accompanied it.

Diversity is strength, but diffusion is weakness

Of course I can already hear the howls of outraged indignation that this kind of talk borders on bigotry, and reflects gross ignorance as to sources of American strength and success. They will, no doubt, point to the enormous contributions made by immigrants, who hailed from civilizational backgrounds far removed from any traces of Judeo-Protestant influence—from East Asia to Latin America.  They will of course recite the worn-out mantra that “diversity is strength” and underscore how Americans of Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic and other origins have all been part of the American success story.

This is all entirely true—and equally irrelevant to the point being made. For it was only in the environment created by the unique societal foundations of America, and the opportunities it afforded, that allowed the immigrants, drawn to its shores from other socio-cultural settings, to blossom.  After all, if this was not the case, why would they leave their countries of origin?

So, as long as these foundations remained the dominant determinant of societal realities in America, the country could continue to absorb productive forces from other societal backgrounds, without jeopardizing the sustainability of its past success.

This, however, is not the case when large bodies of immigrants flow into the country and wish to establish communities which retain—indeed, actively sustain—much of what they left behind in their countries of origin, and which, presumably, comprised much of the motivation for them to leave.

It is then that dynamic diversity begins its decline into dysfunctional diffusion.
Tolerance vs self-abnegation

To illustrate the point somewhat simplistically: It is one thing if a Mexican immigrant arrives in the US, integrates into American society and becomes a productive American. It is quite another, if waves of Mexican immigrants arrive in America and transform significant parts of it into Mexico.

Thus, when immigrants from diverse socio-ethnic backgrounds blend into the dominant culture, the result might well be a synergetic outcome beneficial to both.  But this is unlikely when largely discordant immigrant cultures begin to impose themselves on the dominant host culture, which begins to forego important parts of its identity for fear of “offending” new comers, who were attracted to it precisely because of what that dominant culture offered them.

Accordingly, while tolerance of diverse minorities is clearly enlightened self-interest, self-abnegation to accommodate discordant minority predilections is, no less clearly, a detrimental denial of self-worth.

What has all this to do with the upcoming elections on Tuesday?

Well, a great deal! Indeed, in many ways it lies at the heart of the decision for whom to cast one’s ballot. It not only separates out sharply between the two candidates’ declared platforms and campaign pronouncements, but more profoundly–-far more profoundly—it separates out between their prospective constituencies and the long-term vested interests of the respective political Establishments that support them.

Real “fork in the road”

Accordingly, one does not require advanced degrees in political science to grasp just how the relevant political landscape lies as the crucial ballot approaches.

It is beyond dispute that, because of the demographic composition of its support base, any Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton included, will be exceedingly loath to curtail significant influxes of largely unregulated and un-vetted immigrants from the Mid-East, Latin America and elsewhere. For this reluctance will clearly find favor with many of her current constituents and prospective new ones – particularly in light of the astounding electoral practice in the US which requires no photo ID to allow one to choose who will have access to the nation’s nuclear codes—while such identification is obligatory for a myriad of other far less significant purposes.

By contrast, whether or not one lends credence to Donald Trump’s strident declarations on severe restrictions he plans to impose on immigration across the county’s southern border and from Muslim countries, it is clearly very much in his political interest to act along such lines—since this will deny his adversaries the potential expansion of their political base.

So those, then, are the real stakes in these elections – the real “fork in the road”: A choice between a candidate, whose vested political interests induce her to permit changes that will permanently alter the character and composition of America, or one whose political interests compel him to resist this.

The elections as “damage control”

In many ways—most of them, regrettable—these are elections that are significantly different from virtually all previous ones.

Indeed, there is unprecedented dissatisfaction with—even, disapproval of—both candidates.

Thus, Clinton is hardly an ideal candidate—even for Clinton supporters; and Trump far from an ideal candidate—even for Clinton opponents.

Accordingly, far more than a choice of whom to vote for, these elections will be dominantly a choice of whom not to vote for.  They will be far less a process that determines whom the voters want to ensconce in the White House, and far more about whom they want prevented from being ensconced in it.

Thus, rather than what they hope their preferred candidate can do for the country, their ballot will be determined by what they fear the other candidate will do to the country.

In this sense, these elections are largely an exercise in damage control.

Or at least that is what it should be: A choice, foisted on a largely dismayed electorate, to install the candidate least likely to be able to inflict irreparable damage on the Republic, until American democracy can somehow recover and offer the voter a more appealing selection of candidates in the future.

A relatively simple choice

In this respect, the choice ought to be relatively simple. For regardless of what one might believe as to what either candidate has in his/ her heart, it is clearly Trump who has a greater interest in keeping America American; while Clinton has a vested interest in endorsing the burgeoning inflow of immigrants, who, rather than embrace the founding values of America, are liable to exploit them to change the face of US society beyond recognition.

Indeed, one should be bear in mind that there is nothing “universal” about the noble values on which America was founded and evolved. Quite the opposite. After all, the spirit of liberty and tolerance they reflect are not the hallmarks of many—perhaps even most—of the countries around the globe.  So, unless these values are diligently preserved, they could well be mortally undermined.

It is difficult to think of anything that could undermine the values of a society more fundamentally than the massive influx of largely unregulated un-vetted newcomers, for whom those values are not only foreign, but often antithetical, to those of the countries of origin—something countries like Sweden and Germany have sadly discovered to their great detriment.

But that, of course, is precisely what should be expected if Clinton wins. It would require hefty doses of unbounded, and largely unfounded, optimism to expect any outcome other than increasingly severe erosion of societal values that have defined America in the past.

Specter of irretrievable change

But it is not only the structural bias of Clinton’s political interests that makes her potentially the more permanently damaging incumbent to the character of the American Republic, but also her ability to do so. For, as a seasoned politician, well-versed in the corridors of governmental power and machinations of the political Establishment, she has far greater capacity and reach to ensure that her ill-conceived and detrimental policies are implemented and durably entrenched, than the inexperienced maverick novice Trump. After all, he would undoubtedly require many months “learning the ropes”, before he manages to implement and entrench any allegedly injurious policies that perturb his detractors.

As I wrote in last week’s column, the 2009 Obama administration set a course for America substantially different from those set by his predecessors, and in important ways highly discordant with them. Obama’s 2012 reelection helped solidify the anomalous (the less charitable might say “perverse”) change in direction along which he took the nation.

The election next week of Clinton, who is firmly committed, indeed virtually compelled, to continue with Obama policies is more than likely to make that course irretrievable, and the US—much like several luckless EU countries—will be set on an inevitable downward spiral toward third-world status…from which a growing portion of its population hoped to extricate itself

Obama is right—but Obama is wrong

So President Obama was right when he declared at a North Carolina rally (November 3, 2016): “The fate of the republic rests on your [the voters] shoulders…The fate of the world is teetering…” For these elections will indeed have momentous consequences both for the US and across the world. He is, however entirely mistaken as to the direction in which he urges them “to make sure…we push it” (See introductory excerpt)

Sadly, however, despite the fact that these are likely to be the most consequential elections in modern history, it appears (if the conduct of the campaign is to be any guideline) that they may well be decided because of the most inconsequential reasons. For it seems, it will not be the strategic direction in which the country will be taken that will determine the outcome, but rumors and innuendo as to the  character defects of Trump and his alleged crude indiscretions with women.

Given the stakes, this seems almost inconceivable. Trump should be elected not because of what may occur if he is, but because of what will almost certainly occur if he is not. He should not be judged on what his incumbency might achieve, but what his incumbency must prevent.

So in weighing the grim alternatives, the US electorate would do well to bear in mind that these elections are for the Presidency not the Papacy.  They must choose who is best suited (or the least unsuited) to be President – not the Pope.

If you love America and Israel, vote against the system

October 31, 2016

If you love America and Israel, vote against the system, Israel National News, Naomi Ragen, October 31, 2016

I can certainly see why women, including Jewish women, would prefer a seemingly well-spoken, mature senior stateswoman, to a brash, loud-mouthed political neophyte who has made so many off-handed offensive locker-room comments about women.

This would be your instinct.

How lovely, how easy, it would be then, to vote in a woman running against a man like that.

And how disastrously wrong.

I’ll give you the facts, but honestly, past experience does not leave me hopeful. Eight years ago, to tried to deter people from following their instinct
and voting in Barack Hussein Obama, the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history. But even after I made people aware he spent twenty years in an
anti-Semitic church, and was being advised by the likes of Rashid Khalidi, Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor), pro-Hamas negotiator Robert Malley, UN Ambassador Samantha Power (who once suggested using American troops to guard Palestinians from Israelis), most Jews still voted for Obama.

Why? because they were brainwashed by lying, anti-Israel media to the extent that their instinct told them that what was important above all else was to elect a Black man: Their “instinct” told them how noble, how liberal to cast that vote! And if they didn’t, they were racists. In fact, many people lambasted me for writing “Barack Hussein Obama”. “Hussein,” why did you write that!!

Because it was his name, I answered.I wonder how that worked out for them. I can tell you how it worked out for us in Israel: our biggest enemy and the world’s foremost supporter of terror is now unimpeded in its rush towards nuclear weapons to destroy the next six million Jews.

I wonder sometimes, how these voters live with these consequences.  And now, Barack Hussein Obama and all the EXACT SAME PEOPLE are urging you to vote for Hillary Clinton, who proudly bragged online that she was the true author of the Iran deal, making you feel like a racist, a woman-hater, an idiot, and worse if you don’t.

Repentance is being in exactly the same situation and acting differently. For those who continue down the same road, there is no hope.

So, I’m going to give you some reasons to take a different path. For the sake of the safety and security of the State of Israel, and for the love of what was once the world’s greatest democracy, our beloved United States of America, I hope to change your mind from  possibly making the biggest mistake of
your life.

Hillary Clinton isn’t a friend of Israel

In November 1999, Clinton publicly appeared with Yasir Arafat’s wife Suha and listening quietly while the token bride of the world’s biggest terrorist scumbag accused Israel of using poison gas and chemical contaminants on the water supply wells against Palestinians. In response, Clinton hugged and kissed Suha. Days later, after outraged fallout, Clinton called ‘FOR ALL SIDES to refrain from ‘INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC.”Although Clinton had to please pro-Israel voters when running for the Senate in New York, hints about her real mindset can be gleaned from a careful reading of her book Hard Choices: “When we left the city and visited Jericho in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted. [p.302] …There has been nearly a decade of terror, arising from the second intifada…Three times as many Palestinians were killed and thousands more were injured in the same period [as Israelis].”

This equating of murderers and murderees, victims and perpetrators has long been the code speak of The New York Times and other anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bigots.

And before you point to this or that pro-Israel thing she said, please check the dates: Was it, by chance, between 2001-2009 when she needed the votes of New York Jews?

Because when she left the Senate and became Secretary of State for the most anti-Israel President in the history of our country, the façade got dropped like a hot potato. The first thing she did was throw out an agreement with Israel during the Bush administration, calling for new restrictions on building Jewish homes in existing neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Hillary Clinton is funded by Israel-haters.

But like the chicken and the egg, what came first, Hillary’s anti-Israel perspective, or the money that Israel-haters have been pouring into Clinton Foundation coffers? Or perhaps, she and her husband will take money from anyone, and it was just a lucky coincidence her funders shared
her views?

Saudi Arabia donated ten million dollars to the Clinton Library in 2007 and another $25 million to the Clinton Foundation in June 2016, while individuals close to the Saudi family Nasir Rashid and Friends of Saudi Arabia donated millions more. Clinton’s State Department approved a $29 billion sale of fighter jets to Israel’s enemy Saudi Arabia against Israel’s vociferous objections. Coincidence?

Dubai – The Clinton Foundation has established Dubai Study departments in major U.S. and British Universities.Qatar gave millions to the
Clinton Foundation.In 2014, President Shimon Peres accused Qatar of being “the world’s largest funder of terror: Qatar does not have the right to send money for rockets and tunnels which are fired at innocent civilians,” Peres told UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem. Just this past August, Qatar pledged and additional $31 million to Gaza.

On August 15, 2016 Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General Loretta Lynch revealed that Qatar was the recipient of approximately $271 million in military related export deals. During Clinton’s tenure Qatar was the recipient of approximately $4.3 billion altogether – a 1,482 % increase [in military exports] while Saudi Arabia saw a 97% increase in military exports.

In August 2014 Hillary Clinton wrote to her campaign manager John Podesta that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the area.”

Clinton advisors are anti -Israel

Clinton’s advisors, like Obama’s, have always been uniformly and virulently anti-Israel. They have her ear.

Sidney Blumenthal, Observer’s Ken Sliverstein, wrote recently, is the “ most dishonest, amoral political hatchet man of modern political times.” He is also one of Hillary’s closest friends and a highly paid advisor to her about Israel.

In 2010 he wrote her to “hold Bibi’s feet to the fire….” He told Clinton to “remind AIPAC…that it does not have a monopoly over American Jewish opinion.” Soros-funded anti-Israel J Street should be praised, he offers. In May Blumenthal wrote her, hinting that the raid on the Gaza flotilla was
deliberately organized to kill the peace process and embarrass Obama. Hillary forwarded this message with the words: “FYI and I told you so,” to her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan at the State Department.

Blumenthal’s son Max is an even more self-hating Jew. In 2013, Max appeared in ninth place on that year’s Simon Wiesenthal Center list of
anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slurs, for equating Israel with the Nazi regime and “approving characterizations of Israeli soldiers as ‘Judeo-Nazis.’” This is what Hillary had to say in e-mails about Max and his work:

8.17/2010  Pls congratulate Max for another impressive piece. He’s so good.”

4/7/2011  Will Max’s piece be posted anywhere else? It is powerful and touching.”

9/13/2012  “Your Max is a mitzvah.”

This is what the “mitzvah” wrote when Elie Wiesel died:  “Elie Wiesel went from a victim of war crimes to a defender of those who commit them. He did more harm than good and should not be honored.”

As most of you know, because even the mainstream media couldn’t hide it, Hillary Clinton deliberately ignored her responsibility and the rules, and created a private e-mail server that left highly sensitive, classified security documents vulnerable to hacking by America’s enemies.

But Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal wrote something which has mostly been overlooked: “The Democratic nominee obviously didn’t set up her server with the express purpose of exposing national secrets – that was incidental. She set up the server to keep secret the details of the Clinton’s private life – a life built around an elaborate and sweeping money-raising and self-promoting entity known as the Clinton Foundation. Had Secretary Clinton kept the Foundation at arm’s length while in office –as obvious ethical standards would have dictated – there would never have been any need for a private server or even private email.”

She had much to hide. Other leaked emails make it clear that under Hillary, the State Department took SPECIAL CARE OF DONORS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION. In 2010 a senior State Department aide to Clinton asked a Foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with Haitian earthquake victims were FOB (Friends of Bill) or WJC VIPS (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) “Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website,” Strassel concludes.

Trump is the only one with the guts to have publicly stated she should be in jail for these things.

We could forgive Mrs. Clinton many things, though, if we were convinced she had any core values at all. As she cheerfully admitted in a paid speech to Goldman Sachs, she takes two positions, public and private, on every issue, depending on her audience. She is for and against trade agreements that will lose Americans jobs. She is for and against Wall Street corruption.

Hillary’s Immigration Policy endangers your family

Hillary Clinton supports unlimited immigration of unvetted Muslim immigrants, which will fundamentally change the character of the US, and will endanger Jews, Christians, and ordinary citizens by exposing them to increased levels of anti-Semitism, ethnic hatred, and acts of random, hate-based violence.

All you need to do to verify that statement, is to study the statistics of other Western countries that have allowed themselves to accept a huge influx of Muslim immigrants.

In the British capital alone, anti-Semitic incidents increased by more than 60 percent over the past year, while worldwide anti-Semitism was up by 40%.

“Many refugees come from countries where Israel is an enemy; this resentment is often transferred to Jews in general,” a delegation of German Jews told Chancellor Angela Merkel late last year.For American Jews, who have much to fear both as an individual community, and as part of the larger American population, this is the last chance to actually influence this process. As an Israeli who got brainwashed by progressives to paint doves and let Arafat arm “police” and pull down border checks, and then almost got blown up during the Passover Seder at the Park Hotel, I am telling you this is a life or death issue for you and your families. If you let yourself become brainwashed and complacent, which is what we Israelis did, and vote for this policy and this politician with her appalling track record, the consequences could be horrible. Believe me, I know.

Hillary Clinton is part of an immoral establishment that is destroying America and endangering Israel

Let me admit upfront: I loathe and mistrust The New York Times, NPR, CNN, LA Times, Washington Post Politico, etc. all of whom have lied about Israel, lied about terrorism, lied about Wall Street, lied and covered up Barack Hussein Obama’s incompetence.

A victory for Hillary Clinton is a victory for them and the system they support and the America they’ve created: a weak, bankrupt, racially divided nation of too many homeless, jobless, hopeless people, weighted down by bureaucracy, preyed upon by white collar criminals, unsafe in their cities and homes and schools and unprotected from brazen murdering, raping thugs and terrorists – both homegrown and imported.

It has become a place where veterans are neglected and police are attacked and hounded by the country they give their lives to protect every day. A place where health care is endangered for all by a system that simply doesn’t work.

The establishment that created this chaos would like nothing better than a citizenry that is complacent and stupid, easily swayed by epithets and ugly but irrelevant sound bites .

I prefer Trump because he has never been part of that system. He isn’t a politician. He isn’t afraid to say the things we all believe about the rigged
media, the backroom money deals, the pay for play, Islamic terrorism, unvetted immigration, a border wall, and despicable late term abortions.

A vote for him is a vote against what has happened to America under Barack Hussein Obama and against the political, corporate, and media empires that backed him and brought him to power and want Hillary to take his place.

Look at the facts. Don’t be part of the Punch and Judy show, manipulated by the puppet-masters. Vote against the system. Vote against corruption. Vote for real democracy and real, not fake, change.

Immigrants! Don’t Vote for What You Fled

October 24, 2016

Immigrants! Don’t Vote for What You Fled, Prager University via YouTube, October 24, 2016

(Are we about to vote for what they fled? — DM)

The Incestuous Left and Those Who Provide Cover for them

October 23, 2016

The Incestuous Left and Those Who Provide Cover for them, American Thinker, Clarice Feldman, October 23, 2016

As the election nears, the media hype, designed to affect the results, demoralize and demonize Trump and his supporters and confirm the bias of its elite coastal consumers, continues. Saturday’s opinion-posing-as-news lead in the Washington Post says the end is near for Trump — the polls have him down everywhere and he was booed for crass attacks at the Al Smith dinner in New York. What do you expect from media whose reporters are literally in bed with the administration?

Not only are reporters feeding debate questions to the Clinton campaign, we have a video of one of them, Andrea Mitchell, seemingly being fed what to ask by Hillary’s traveling press secretary.

Extensive evidence from Wikileaks, FOIA responses, and “human sources” of the incestuous and improper coordination between the media and the Democrats have been detailed by Sharyl Attkisson. She concludes:

It can be argued that some individual accounts can be rationalized and are not serious breaches of ethics. But taken as a whole, it’s easy to see how we as journalists have done a poor job protecting ourselves from being co-opted by organized interests, often ones that are paid and politically-motivated. Whether we realize it or not, they’ve figured out how to exploit the media and use us to publish their propaganda. It implies a broad and growing trend that has seriously undermined the credibility of the news industry.

Opinion reporters and those who work for obviously ideological news groups are entitled to publish party propaganda. It’s one matter to provide viewpoint journalism. But it’s quite another for us to act as a tool of any interest, publishing narratives or talking points upon suggestion or demand, without disclosing we’ve done just that.

Wikileaks promises to unleash even more insider accounts of the Clinton campaign and DNC shenanigans this coming week and has said it has even more current information — material respecting serious wrongdoing by the DNC head Donna Brazile and Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate Timothy Kaine coming up next. James O’Keefe of Project Veritas says that on Monday he is releasing a video of Robert Creamer, shown as a vote fixer in previous videos, coordinating with Clinton and Brazile. “Anything happens to me, there’s a deadman’s switch on Part III, which will be released Monday. @HillaryClinton and @donnabrazile implicated.”

The media has hardly reported these disclosures and when it has it has downplayed them, but it is no longer a gatekeeper deciding what we are allowed to know, although it tries hard to hide Hillary’s obvious physical disabilities from the public eye.

As for the polls, Democrat pollster Pat Caddell says we may be in for a shock election night:

“All of the tracking polls keep holding at Trump being ahead,” he continued. “And then all of these other polls that are one-off polls, or whatever… I don’t know how they’re doing some of these university polls. You just put the name of some university and apparently it becomes credible, whether they know what they’re doing, or not.

Caddell was pointing out the discrepancy between the different types of polls. “But in any event, polling is all over the place…. Something isn’t adding up,” said Caddell.

“Something is going to happen here, I just sense it,” he concluded. Either “Hillary will glide into the White House, or we’re headed for one of the greatest shocks in American politics. I think it’s a very close call. I think the shock potential is enormous.”

Our own Jared E. Peterson fleshes out Caddell‘s point:

Here are some of the numbers available Friday, October 21, 2016:

Goebbels/Pravda: (with NBC and CBS as reported by RCP on the afternoon of Friday, October 21, 2016):

ABC/Washington Post: 47-43, Clinton

NBC: 51-43, Clinton

CBS:  51-40, Clinton

Non-Propaganda Machine-affiliated: (as reported on the afternoon of Friday October 21, 2016):

IBT/TIPP: 41-40, Trump

LA Times/USC Tracking: 44.5-43.8, Trump

Rasmussen: 43-41, Trump

To say there’s a huge difference between the current state of the race as depicted by Goebbels/Pravda versus that shown by major independent polling organizations, would be risible understatement.

The propaganda arm of the Democratic Party is showing a runaway race, while the independents present an extremely tight one, with Trump frequently leading by a nose.

We know that at least one — the NBC/WSJ poll which early showed Clinton with an improbable 11-point lead — was a barely disguised effort intended to manipulate public opinion using a small pool of voters, improbably weighted and produced by a firm with extensive ties to the Clinton camp.

As for the media account of the Al Smith dinner, it seems like the fake accounts of Trump encouraging violence at his rallies, it’s not a true account. Joe Concha reports that you weren’t being told that Hillary got just as mean and personal as Trump did and also received some boos even from such an elite Democrat supporting party — and Concha who quotes from their remarks is joined in this assessment by Piers Morgan.

It’s hard to disagree with Concha’s conclusion:

“Who would think the 2016 Al Smith Dinner would encapsulate the prism our media sees this campaign in so perfectly?

A prism where only one candidate exists.

Because as we’re seeing on television and in print today, it just somehow did.”

The dinner itself reflects how even the Catholic Archdiocese, which sponsors this dinner for the benefit of Catholic Charities, has been coopted by the left and vast sums of federal money. It looks as if it has lost its way. Catholic Charities receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal treasury as a refugee resettlement contractor. They accept thousands of unvetted Syrian Moslems and place them in communities already struggling to provide basic services, get them signed up for welfare benefits for which taxpayers then have to foot the bill and then lobby Congress for more funds to repeat this operation.

Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: These nominally Catholic organizations are the largest VOLAGs [voluntary organizations], with hundreds of offices spread throughout the country. They are prominent members of the open borders/amnesty movement. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) is “the domestic anti-poverty program of the U.S. Catholic Bishops” and a grant-making vehicle of the USCCB. It was founded in Chicago in 1969 with the help of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, specifically to fund Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. CCHD has been a radical leftist funding vehicle ever since, giving millions to ACORN, the radical training school Midwest Academy, and others. The Industrial Areas Foundation, where a young Barack Obama was trained in “community organizing” with financial support from the Chicago Archdiocese, receives the largest percentage of CCHD grants of any CCHD grantee.

President Obama had this to say about CCHD:

I got my start as a community organizer working with mostly Catholic parishes on the Southside of Chicago that were struggling because the steel plants had closed. The Campaign for Human Development helped fund the project and so, very early on, my career was intertwined with the belief in social justice that is so strong in the Church.

USCCB founded the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., a $7 million subsidiary which assists illegal aliens based on “the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger.” It aggressively promotes amnesty, believing that “all goods of the earth belong to all people. When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.” USCCB has 270 field offices in 47 states. Board members include Donald D. Taylor, president of the extreme-left union UNITE HERE!

Catholics are not alone in this three-card Monte game — there are nine other such nominally faith-based organization receiving vast sums to bring refugees here, pushing for amnesty and more money for their operations which are disrupting American communities and transforming them.

Most if not all started out as private charitable institutions providing financial and other aid out of their own funds for this work. Iowahawk describes the transformation of so many of our once fine institutions as these:

“Take a respected institution.

Kill it.

Gut it.

Wear its carcass as a skin suit.

And demand respect.”

I don’t recall Catholic Charities or any of the voluntary resettlement contractors lobbying on the hill for better vetting of refugees or for a change in the UN processing of them abroad to include truly persecuted groups like Christian refugees. (They may have; I just haven’t seen it.) It’s a scandal — your money funds these nominally Christian and Jewish groups to bring in ever more inassimilable, low educated, unskilled, and sometimes very ill and dangerous hordes to transform us from a Christian-Judeo nation which believes in religious tolerance into one in which a growing minority of immigrants which a supremacist fantasy encourages demands for special privileges and the right to live off our bounty as they undermine what has created it.

The more refugee cases a volag is assigned, the more money the federal government hands over to the private agency. In some ways, the model resembles those charities that spend inordinately on fund raising and administration instead of on actually helping needy people.

Clearly, refugee resettlement policy and programs, from top to bottom, are overdue for congressional scrutiny and reform. Those organizations, including religious ones, receiving federal monies deserve close assessment. It is morally incumbent on religious refugee bureaus to examine their own hearts. As Christ said, it is impossible to serve both God and money (Luke 16:13). Their efforts would be a lot more honest and effective and a lot less harmful to their fellow countrymen and communities if they returned to reliance on private funding alone.

Hundreds of Catholic institutions are involved, including Catholic Charities of NY. The $177.2 million in federal grants to Catholic charities in 2015 are from a single charity organization. — the Catholic Charities of Chicago. So it’s fair to assume that the NY branch (for whom the Al Smith dinner is the beneficiary) itself garnered at least that much that year.

But the Al Smith dinner reflects more than its being a cover for leftist money-grubbing at our expense — it reveals a shocking disregard for Catholic sensibilities to curry favor with New York’s leftist elites and Hillary.

Recent history reveals the shift. Writing in the NC Register, Thomas Mcardle questions whether this dinner for the glitterati has passed its expiration date.

The overall message the Al Smith Dinner now sends to Americans, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, is that Catholic teachings on human life and marriage can’t be allowed to muss relations between the Church and an increasingly anti-Catholic state. But in both 1996 and 2004, the abortion-friendly position of first Bill Clinton and then Catholic Democrat nominee John Kerry led to both parties’ candidates not being invited by the Archdiocese of New York.

The decision to invite Hillary is even more inexplicable when the Archbishop had the same week demanded an apology from Hillary for the anti-Catholic material within her campaign disclosed by Wikileaks, and hasn’t received one.

Emails released last week by WikiLeaks showed Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri, both Catholics, in conversations with activists from two left-wing organizations. In the emails, Catholics were debased, with their beliefs being called “severely backwards.” Conservative Catholics also were accused of “an amazing bastardization of the faith,” and Rupert Murdoch was mocked for baptizing his children as Catholics in the River Jordan.

The U.S. Church’s bishops were slammed in the emails as well, referred to as “a middle ages dictatorship.”

Palmieri said in one of the emails she thought conservatives that had come to Catholicism did so because “they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” and that “their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”

Podesta admitted to helping launch a “progressive” infiltration of the Church in another email, and he took an active role in attempting to incite a liberal Catholic revolt against the U.S. bishops.

“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this,” Podesta wrote. “But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

The “Catholic Spring” Podesta referred to had been broached in the email by Center for Progress president Sandy Newman, who had pondered how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or “who would plant them.”

With even more damaging Wikileaks and Project Veritas disclosures coming, the Clinton camp is now trying to question their credibility, source, and organizer. So far, the claims seem unpersuasive. Donna Brazile whose head seems to be moving next under the Wikileakd guillotine has suggested the emails were tampered with.  (You might remember that in 1988 she was fired from the DNC and Dukakis apologized for her conduct when she spread a lie that George H.W. Bush had a mistress.) Cryptographers debunk that.

Hillary has claimed that U.S. Security agencies told her the hacks were Russian, suggesting Putin is trying to influence our election. Like everything else she says, this, too, is false.  Rumors smearing Assange as a pedophile have been spread — doubtless by the trolls within the Clinton network.  Reddit sleuths trace them to the address of an intelligence agency that seems to share an address with an outfit on whose board sit Larry Summers and Neera Tanden, both major players in the Clinton shadow government Center for American Progress.

Whether this will pan out on further investigation, remains to be seen, but given what we know of how the Clintons operate I’d consider it a distinct possibility.

Former UK foreign minister Craig Murray hints the Wikileaks come from inside the Clinton camp itself.

“I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense. Journalists are also publishing that these were obtained by “hacking” with no evidence that this was the method used to obtain them. [snip]

But the key point is that WikiLeaks is a publisher. It is a vehicle for publishing leaks, and is much more of a vehicle for whistleblowers than for hackers. It does not originate the material. I have often seen comments such as “Why has WikiLeaks not published material on Israel/Putin/Trump?” The answer is that they have not been given any. They publish good, verifiable material that they are given by whistleblowers.”

It would warm my cold heart to think there is an honest person or two somewhere on the vast Clinton payroll.

 

America is addicted, sleepy and becoming comatose.

October 18, 2016

America is addicted, sleepy and becoming comatose, Dan Miller’s Blog, October 18, 2016

(The opinions expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Hillary and her media titillate us with their sexual fantasies and put us to sleep with heroin for the body and heroin for the mind. Trump yells “Wake up and Fix our open borders!” Hillary mumbles “America is already great and that’s not who we are.” Is “H” for Hillary or Heroin?

hillbutton

Sources of America’s Hard Drugs

Most heroin consumed in America enters across our southern border.

According to the DEA, the majority of the heroin consumed in the United States comes from Mexico (50%) and Colombia (43-45%) via Mexican criminal cartels such as Sinaloa Cartel.[90] However, these statistics may be significantly unreliable, the DEA’s 50/50 split between Colombia and Mexico is contradicted by the amount of hectares cultivated in each country and in 2014, the DEA claimed most of the heroin in the US came from Colombia.[91] As of 2015, the Sinaloa Cartel is the most active drug cartel involved in smuggling illicit drugs such as heroin into the United States and trafficking them throughout the United States.[92]

That’s the border that Trump wants to close and Hillary wants to keep open for the Mexican criminal cartels, rapists, other criminals and potential Democrat voters; U.S. citizen or non-U.S. citizen? What difference it make now? Just play Catch and Release.

Heroin is not the only “recreational” drug transiting our southern border.

Venezuela, Iran, USA and Narco-Terrorism

[D]eeper and more alarming than the Venezuelan homicide toll, there appears to be an imminent threat to the entire Western hemisphere from partnerships between Venezuelan drug traffickers and terrorist networks like Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups that act a proxies for Iran.

Together, terrorism and illegal drugs represent a significant export for Venezuela. Iran and Venezuela partner together to move terrorist cells and drugs to hubs in the United States and throughout North America.

. . . .

Hezbollah’s annual budget of more than 100 million dollars is provided by the Iranian government directly and through a complex system of finance cells scattered around the world, from Bangkok and Paraguay to Michigan and North Carolina.

Far from being the passive beneficiaries of drug-trafficking expats and sympathizers, Hezbollah has high-level officials directly involved in the South American cocaine trade and its most violent cartels, including the Mexican crime syndicate Los Zetas. Hezbollah’s increasing foothold in the cocaine trade is facilitated by an enormous Lebanese diaspora.

. . . .

Alongside their efforts to battle their own serious homegrown drug problems in Iran, the Revolutionary Guards are also reportedly working to harness the strategic and tactical potential of the international drug trade in order to advance Iran’s expansion. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

At the same time, the U.S. administration continues to purchase 10% of its oil (roughly 300 million barrels per year) from Venezuela, the same entity that it sanctioned in 2011 for shipping gasoline to Iran.

This is all happening while terrorist groups are regularly connecting to drug cartels in the region, and forging a deepening narco-terror machine that in turn is funding terrorist activities. [Emphasis added.]

Miami: Three Hizballah operatives busted for laundering $500,000 of cocaine money for Colombian cartel:

Hizballah is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has repeatedly declared its intention to destroy the United States, as you can read about in detail in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran (Regnery). Hizballah working with the drug cartel kills two birds with one stone: drugs weaken and destroy Americans, and sap American resources in largely futile anti-drug efforts, and the cash Hizballah earns in working with the drug cartel goes for more jihad against the U.S. [Emphasis added.]

How do the drugs get to America and elsewhere?

Drug ‘mule’ aged 12

Police in New York said the boy, a U.S. citizen who had been living with grandparents in Nigeria, is one of the youngest drug ‘mules’ they have ever seen.

He was only caught because his body began to pass the condoms the drug was hidden in while he was in a taxi.

Doctors who removed the remaining ‘packages’ from his colon said he would have died if one had burst. [Emphasis added.]

Police said the boy, Prince Nnaedozie Umegbolu, made the dangerous journey because he wanted to see his mother, who lives in Atlanta, Georgia. He was to be paid £1,200.

His father, Chukwunwieke Umegbolu, is in prison in Virginia for drugsmuggling.

The boy’s journey began in Nigeria where drug smugglers gave him the condoms to swallow.

He then travelled alone to London by Air Nigeria before flying on to New York by British Airways.

Please see also,  Here’s What It Feels Like to Smuggle 700 Grams of Cocaine in Your Stomach and The Down And Dirty Of Vagina Smuggling.

(Update — This new Project video was just posted. It’s about vote fraud and how to engage in it without being caught.)

(Update — This new Project video was just posted. It’s about vote fraud and how to engage in it without being caught.)

Heroin for the mind

Don’t look behind the curtain; you might see how the witch wizards are feeding us heroin for the mind.

Conclusions

America has a substantial drug problem; most hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, come across our southern border with help from Iran and its proxies. Trump wants to close the border to “undocumented aliens” and Hillary wants to keep it open to all, regardless of why they are coming and regardless of the consequences to Americans (as well as to young drug mules). Trump has the first endorsements ever by the Border Patrol Employees’ Union and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Employees’ Union because they are not being permitted to do their jobs.

Aside from her hopes for votes from new Democrat voters, why does Hillary support open borders? I don’t know because (unlike Abraham Lincon) she often lies about what she thinks and wants. But is it possible that she favors a continuous and copious supply of hard drugs for many of her supporters in large, Democrat controlled, American cities? Because she believes that America should share the disasters the “third world” continues to face? Because has sees no problem with this?

an imminent threat to the entire Western hemisphere from partnerships between Venezuelan drug traffickers and terrorist networks like Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups that act a proxies for Iran.

Together, terrorism and illegal drugs represent a significant export for Venezuela. Iran and Venezuela partner together to move terrorist cells and drugs to hubs in the United States and throughout North America.

Perhaps she is uncomfortable with the notions that, despite the Iran Scam, Iran continues to be our enemy and that Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations.

If Hillary becomes our next president, will America’s already serious problems with Iran and drugs worsen? I think so.

Massive Flood of New Immigrants from Muslim Nations

October 12, 2016

Massive Flood of New Immigrants from Muslim Nations, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, October 12, 2016

hilltsunami

The Washington Examiner reported last week that “at 42.4 million, there are now more immigrants, legal and illegal, in America than ever before, fueled by a massive flood from Muslim nations….And while the doors remain open on the U.S.-Mexico border, the biggest percentage increases in immigration are all from largely Muslim nations.” What could possibly go wrong? Hillary Clinton knows, as she revealed in a 2013 email that makes her current public position on immigration absolutely inexplicable.

The Examiner added that according to Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler of the Center for Immigration Studies: “The sending countries with the largest percentage increases in immigrants living in the United States from 2010 to 2014 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent), Bangladesh (up 37 percent), Iraq (up 36 percent), Egypt (up 25 percent), and Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (each up 24 percent).”

Hillary Clinton, despite her determination to increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the United States by 550%, knows very well the risks involved in this massive influx of Muslim immigrants, and in her scheme to increase their number even more. The Daily Caller reported Monday that “in a private 2013 speech, Hillary Clinton worried about the risk of ‘jihadists’ entering Jordan with ‘legitimate refugees’ because ‘they can’t possibly vet all those refugees.’”

Clinton said in a speech before the Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago: “So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism, and particularly with Syria, which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees. So they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”

Clinton vowed during her second presidential debate with Donald Trump: “I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” So she apparently believes that while Jordan and Turkey cannot vet the refugees and winnow out the jihadis from among peaceful Muslims, the United States government under a Hillary Clinton administration will be able to do so.

This is an extraordinary claim: two Muslim nations are unable to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, but a non-Muslim nation will be able to do so? Hillary Clinton could only advance such a proposition in a world in which non-Muslim spokesmen such as John Kerry, David Cameron and Pope Francis pronounce confidently and authoritatively on the nature of Islam, blithely contradicting Islamic law and theological consensus, as well as the closely-argued Qur’anic exegeses of numerous jihad leaders, in telling us that Islam is a religion of peace that rejects every form of violence. Clinton herself has declared: “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Since she is so sure that she knows all about Islam and Muslims, Clinton is doubtless sure that she will be able to ensure that U.S. immigration and refugee authorities “will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” Yet when she makes statements so divorced from reality as her claim that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” she doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that those whom she thinks pose a risk to us will be those who actually do pose a risk to us.

Even worse, when as far back as three years ago, she indicated that she had some idea of the difficulty even for Muslim countries to vet the refugees properly, her advocacy of a steep increase in Muslim immigration is, at very least, astonishingly irresponsible. Her position appears to be based on a toxic combination of willful ignorance and hubris – toxic not for her presidential chances, but for the possibility that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the United States.

Clinton campaign emails: blacks and Muslims are “professional never-do-wells”

October 11, 2016

Clinton campaign emails: blacks and Muslims are “professional never-do-wells”, Creeping Sharia, October 11, 2016

From last weekend’s Wikileaks release of Hillary Clinton emails. 

Source: WIKILEAKS

What makes for successful immigration?

It’s no brain surgery, but the media have long failed to provide a clear credible answer. They are unable to come up with an answer or don’t like the answer that’s staring them in the face. The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.

Screenshot below:

hillary-never-do-wells

In a separate email to Clinton’s campaign chief:

From:orca100@upcmail.nl To: podesta@law.georgetown.edu Date: 2016-02-21 00:51

Subject: Multikultistan: A house of horrors for ordinary Germans

Muslim Immigration and Multicultural Madness have left a trail of misery and mayhem across Germany – with far worse to come because of demographics · Muslims make up only 9% of Berlin’s population, yet account for 70% of young repeat criminals, revealed Berlin public prosecutor Roman Reusch http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-51448987.html. To be more precise, 46% of Berlin’s juvenile serial criminals are of Arab descent, while 33% of them have Turkish ancestry

Muslim immigration is just one long tale of woe and misery for the long-suffering host countries, which are in for far worse to come in the decades ahead because of barely understood demographic realities. Incidentally, the same sad observation can be made of the Black Diaspora in Western Europe, North America, Latin America and the Caribbean (see previous statistics-packed emails and upcoming info – you have yet to receive these!).


More examples this morning:

Hillary In Leaked Email: Saudi Arabia And Qatar Are Funding ISIS

Leaked Emails Expose Tight Link Between CNBC And Clinton Campaign

Hillary and ‘Undocumented’ Aliens

October 7, 2016

Hillary and ‘Undocumented’ Aliens, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, October 6, 2016

fc

The excuse “my dog ate my homework” supposedly explains why a student failed to bring a homework assignment to class, but it is an excuse that no one believes.  It is not limited students who fail to do their homework, but has come to be the cliché excuse for anyone not completing an assignment who provides a lame excuse that everyone knows is a lie.

Politicians, pollsters and pundits who are advocates for open borders and the creation of immigration anarchy seek to minimize the true significance of aliens entering the United States without inspection and, of critical importance in this particularly perilous era, without vetting.

Their strategy to deceive Americans is to employ the equivalent excuse of the dog eating homework by saying that these illegal aliens entered the United States “without documentation,” thus shifting attention from the fact that millions of aliens entered the United States stealthily, without inspection.

This is the strategy of Hillary Clinton and her immigration anarchy accomplices.

The inspections process is conducted at America’s 325 ports of entry located along the northern and southern borders of the United States, at seaports that lie along our nation’s 95,000 miles of coastline and at international airports by the arm of DHS known as CBP (Customs and Border Protection), and is supposed to prevent the entry of aliens who pose a threat to the safety of America and Americans.

When a student fails to turn in an assignment his/her teacher will normally press that errant student about why the homework really was not completed, demonstrating the teacher’s dissatisfaction with the excuse.

Yet the obvious question that is never asked about illegal aliens who enter the United States without inspection who claim to be “undocumented” is, “What really happened to their documents?”  Did they ever have a passport or other identity documents?  Did they somehow lose them on their way to the United States?  Did they destroy them before running our borders because they know that their names on those passports would show up on terror watch lists or on lists of international fugitives?

Before we go any further, it is vital to understand that the documents we are talking about are not library cards or credit cards.  These are cards that, under law, are supposed to provide reliable evidence about the true identity of the bearer.  This is a matter of national security.

In point of fact, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1101 – Definitions is a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and provides essential definitions relating to the enforcement and administration of our nation’s immigration laws.  Here is how this section of the INS defines passport:

(30)  The term “passport” means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer’s origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.

“Undocumented aliens” entered Mexico before they ran the U.S./Mexican border.  How on earth did they manage to enter Mexico?  If they flew to Mexico they likely had their passports upon entry and subsequently destroyed them. Consider the national security crisis this creates for the United States.

I recently wrote an article that disclosed how Mr. Obama is now “addressing” this clear national security threat, “Beyond Belief: Obama Seeks Illegal Immigration Assistance Of Latin American Countries As Aliens Flood Into The U.S.The wolves helping to guard the hen house?

Increasingly the Border Patrol has been intercepting aliens from countries other than Mexico and, appropriately, referring to them as OTMs (Other Than Mexico).

Some of these aliens are not only not citizens of Mexico, but are not even citizens of Latin American countries. Some, in fact, are citizens of “Special Interest Countries.”  These are countries that are involved with terrorism.

That these aliens managed to travel half-way across the globe and, upon arrival in the United States, are found to have no passports or other authentic identity documents should set off alarm bells.

Hillary Clinton’s “solution,” however, is to provide them with lawful status and even pathways to citizenship within 100 days of becoming president.

The use of passports and identity documents and multiple failures of the immigration system were the focus of considerable attention by the 9/11 Commission.

The preface of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” includes this paragraph:

The story begins with “A Factual Overview of the September 11 Border Story.” This introduction summarizes many of the key facts of the hijackers’ entry into the United States. In it, we endeavor to dispel the myth that their entry into the United States was “clean and legal.” It was not. Three hijackers carried passports with indicators of Islamic extremism linked to al Qaeda; two others carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner. It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications. Once in the United States, two hijackers violated the terms of their visas. One overstayed his visa. And all but one obtained some form of state identification. We know that six of the hijackers used these state issued identifications to check in for their flights on September 11. Three of them were fraudulently obtained.

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

By analyzing information available at the time, we identified numerous entry and embedding tactics associated with these earlier attacks in the United States. 

The World Trade Center Bombing, February 1993. Three terrorists who were involved with the first World Trade Center bombing reportedly traveled on Saudi passports containing an indicator of possible terrorist affiliation. Three of the 9/11 hijackers also had passports containing this same possible indicator of terrorist affiliation.5

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists 

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel. 

Back when I was a Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) we found that aliens who had arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport, supposedly with no passports, immediately claimed “Political Asylum.”  It was discovered that they had destroyed their passports in the bathrooms on the airliners on which they flew to the United States.

All too often such arriving aliens were given appointments to show up for hearings at the immigration offices and they simply disappeared once they left the airport.  The solution to this was not costly or difficult.  Their passports should have been placed in a locked box upon boarding the airliners that would be placed in the cockpit or other secured place on the aircraft.

Yet, to my knowledge, this simple measure was never considered nor implemented.

They certainly shouldn’t have been released on their own recognizance in the United States.

There are often simple and inexpensive solutions to the problems relating to the immigration crisis.  However, it is clear that all too many of our politicians, irrespective of party affiliation, aren’t interested in solving these problems, but they have been bought and paid for by the immigration anarchists lead by such organizations as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Documenting the “undocumented” is a prescription for a disaster.

As the 15th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 approached, I wrote an article about the vulnerabilities that the Obama administration abjectly refuses to address.  My article was, “Reflections on 9/11’s Vulnerabilities: The failures that proved key factors in the attacks — and how Obama has exacerbated them.

My dad used to say that nothing is so good it couldn’t be better or be so bad it couldn’t get worse.  I am convinced that somehow Ms. Clinton would find a way to make the immigration crisis worse — much worse.

Clinton Article in Spanish Hails U.S.-Latin America Unity

October 2, 2016

Clinton Article in Spanish Hails U.S.-Latin America Unity, Latin American Herald Tribune, October 2, 2016

MIAMI – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton hailed the power implicit in the geographical and cultural proximity between Latin America and the United States.

In an editorial written in Spanish and published Friday in the Miami daily El Nuevo Herald, the former secretary of state said that no other region in the world is “more important” for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.

“There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage,” Clinton said, adding that the “interdependence” of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.

“We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it,” she said, a clear reference to her rival, Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has promised more than once to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico if elected to the White House.

Clinton noted that she and her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, who lived for a time in Central America, see such a potential in Latin America for vibrant democracies, a growing middle class, extraordinary natural resources, some of the world’s most diverse communities, and a sense of optimism and opportunity that it’s inspiring.

“Donald Trump looks south and sees only crime and chaos. From the first day of his campaign he has belittled U.S. Latinos, insulted and denigrated people in the entire region and promised to build a wall between us and our nearest neighbor,” she said, adding that her rival is “completely wrong.”

Latin America has made “great strides” in recent years, which have led to “historic changes,” said the Democratic candidate, who at the same time defended the need to maintain close ties with the region due to some “real threats” it still faces.