Friday, December 28, 2018

GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS NANCY PELOSI AND CHUCK SCHUMER VOW THE HORDES WILL KEEP COMING, VOTING DEMOCRAT FOR MORE AND DEPRESS WAGES EVEN MORE!


Save the Children, Build a Wall 
The Democrats would rather see children die than build a wall. 
By Daniel Greenfield 
FrontPageMag.com

The dead children are not the victims of an overworked Border Patrol that has been deliberately starved of the resources to do its job, because its job would limit the ability of Democrats to steal elections. They are the victims of abusive parents or caretakers, who are willing to use the lives of their children as tickets to get inside the United States, not to escape persecution, but to double or triple their incomes. 

The migrants are not refugees fleeing totalitarian regimes that are persecuting them for their beliefs. They are economic migrants who are willing to kill their children to earn more and get more free stuff. And they are every bit as guilty as the parents who leave their children to die in hot cars while they play slot machines. Any sane society would treat their murderous abuse of their children the same way. 

Unfortunately we are not a sane society. 

The flow of illegal migrants manufactures Democrat votes, not just through illegal voting, but through the far more pervasive problem of fake districts, boosted by illegal aliens and other non-citizens. The political machine that turned California into a Democrat one-party state where democracy is an alien concept, that has ravaged Virginia and has its gimlet eye on Texas, depends on illegal migration. 
. . . 
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272368/save-children-build-wall-daniel-greenfield 

PELOSI AND SCHUMER RANKS AS TWO OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN AMERICAN HISTORY!



When talking about immigration, Democrats like to conflate illegal and legal immigration, dropping the word “illegal” and spouting meaningless babble about no human being illegal. They like to preach  that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than American citizens, a factoid that has been exposed as a lie.
The murder of legal immigrant and Newman Police Corporal Ronil Singh on Christmas night by an illegal alien in the sanctuary state of California shows not only that the claims by Chuck Schumer and the “bride of Chucky” Nancy Pelosi that the Democrats support border security is a deadly and bald-faced lie. It highlights the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, between those who love America and want to be Americans and those who murder them.
Pelosi and Schumer like to talk about the “Dreamers.” Well, Ronil Singh had dreams, too:
Ronil Singh came to the U.S. from his native Fiji to fulfill a lifelong dream of becoming an officer, joining a small-town police force in California and working to improve his English. The day after Christmas, he stopped another immigrant, this one in the country illegally, who shot and killed the corporal, authorities said Thursday…
"This suspect is in our country illegally. He doesn't belong here. He is a criminal," Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson, whose agency is leading the investigation, told reporters.
Newman Police Chief Randy Richardson fought back tears as he described Singh, a 33-year-old with a newborn son, as an "American patriot."
"He came to America with one purpose, and that was to serve this country," Richardson said…
"He was living the American dream," said Stanislaus County Sheriff's Deputy Royjinder Singh, who is not related to the slain officer but knew him. "He loved camping, loved hunting, loved fishing, loved his family."
And now he is dead. The blood of Kate Steinle, Mollie Tibbetts, and now Ronil Singh and others is on the hands of open border advocates and the sanctuary city loons who provide no sanctuary for the American citizen victims of illegal alien criminals.
Even if it were true that illegal aliens commit crimes, including murder, at rates lower than American citizens, that would be irrelevant. The murder rate for illegal aliens should be zero because none of them should be here and the indisputable fact is that Jamiel Shaw Jr., Kate Steinle, and Mollie Tibbetts would be alive today if the illegal aliens who slew them were still staring at the other side of a border wall liberals refuse to build.
Pelosi has said that a border wall would be “immoral, ineffective, and expensive” when it has been documented when it has been demonstrated that none of that is true. The fact is that walls are so effective they have been built in scores of countries around the world and in the U.S. places like San Diego and Yuma have demonstrated their effectiveness as Pelosi and Schumer worry more about Syria’s borders than our own:
According to Quebec University expert Elisabeth Vallet. there are65 completed or under construction border walls in the world today.
One-third of the world’s nations have border walls or barriers with their neighbors.
Pelosi believes this is immoral.
Tell that to Israel, Hungary, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, etc.
And Nancy Pelosi has a wall around the backyard at her home in San Francisco.
What is immoral is a policy endorsed by Pelosi and Schumer of sanctuary cities and even states that allows such criminal aliens in our country to murder Americans and a Democratic caucus that would abolish I.C.E. and those who risk their lives daily to provide some semblance of border security.  What is immoral is politicians such  as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf  not only refusing to cooperate with I.C.E. butgiving illegal aliens a heads-up when I.C.E. raids are imminent.
In the wake of the Singh murder, Schaaf still insists that warning illegal aliens about I.C.E. raids was and is the right thing to do, the lives of American citizens she is sworn to protect be damned:
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf -- who once warned Northern California residents about an impending ICE raid -- said she has “no regrets” for her actions and said the federal immigration agency “has gone astray.”
“I have no regrets, none. The more time goes by, the more certain I feel that I did the right thing in standing up for our community and pointing out our values are not aligned with our laws,” Schaff toldBuzzFeed in an interview. “That’s hopefully the message that is sent out.”
The message Schaaf, Pelosi, and Schumer are sending out is one of callous disregard for the lives of American citizens. Democrats are endangering their lives and the lives of migrant children by enticing caravans to drag young children a thousand miles with lies about easy entry and waiting jobs:
The father of an 8-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in U.S. custody took his son to the border after hearing rumors that parents and their children would be allowed to migrate to the United States and escape the poverty in their homeland, the boy's stepsister told the Associated Press.
Felipe Gomez Alonzo died Monday at a New Mexico hospital after suffering coughing, vomiting and fever, authorities said. It was the second such death this month. Another Guatemalan child, 7-year-old Jakelin Caal, died in U.S. custody on Dec. 8.
The fact is that if we had a wall, or whatever the hair-splitters want to call it, both these children would be alive today. And it is American kids are dying too, killed and murdered by illegal aliens who have no right to be here. Just ask the parents of Justin Lee, 14, who was killed in a hit-and-run accident by an illegal alien:
An illegal immigrant has pleaded guilty to a hit and run that killed a Wixom teen in June.
Miguel Ibarra-Cerda, 22, entered his plea Thursday, the day his trial was set to begin before Judge Cheryl Matthews in Oakland County Circuit Court.
Ibarra-Cerda is charged with failing to stop at the scene of an accident when at fault, resulting in death, and reckless driving causing death for the collision which killed Justin Lee, 14. Ibarra-Cerda faces up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for the first charge and 15 years in prison and a $2,500-$10,000 fine on the second charge. Matthews will sentence him Dec. 20.
Police in Connecticut have arrested an 18-year-old undocumented immigrant from Jamaica on murder charges related to the shooting death of an innocent 12-year-old boy a week before Christmas.
Bridgeport Police Chief Armando Perez on Monday announced the charges against Tajay Chambers stemming from the December 18 death of Clinton Howell outside his family's home on Willow Street.
Chambers has been charged with murder; murder with special circumstances; use of a firearm during the commission of a felony; illegal possession of a firearm without a permit; risk of injury to a child; reckless endangerment, and larceny….
CTpost.com reported, citing police sources, that earlier that evening, Chambers and his alleged co-conspirators were driving in a stolen car when they got into an argument with some people walking along Willow Street, among them Howell’s relative.
There have been many suggestions as to how to pay for the wall, such as Sen. Ted Cruz’s idea to apply drug asset forfeitures to wall construction or to tax the billions of dollars aliens return to their home countries.. Pelosi certainly found no problem locating $3 billion for the ineffective and absurd “Cash for Clunkers” program under Obama, didn’t she?
The wall would in fact pay for itself, if only in the reduced cost of crimes that would be eliminated, saving both dollars from overburdened social services and the cost of illegal alien crimes, particularly the cost in human lives such as that of Ronil Singh, who is survived by his wife and young son.
His death, the death of a legal immigrant pursuing the American dream, and countless other American citizens, including children, is on the hands of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Perhaps Pelosi can attend Singh’s funeral and explain how his death and the deaths of others in the absence of a wall is all President Trump’s fault and that not building the wall is the moral thing to do.
Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared inInvestor’s Business DailyHuman EventsReason Magazine and the ChicagoSun-Times among other publications.              






PELOSI’S OPEN BORDERS MEXIFORNIA where La Raxa loots first!

7 OUT OF 10 ILLEGALS ON WELFARE!

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/12/mexifornia-where-mexico-loots-first-7.html

What is the true cost of all the Democrat Party’s “cheap” labor?



BORDER AGENT RESCUES DROWNING MIGRANT INVADERS…. Mexico ships them back over the border to register Democrat and collect their anchor baby welfare!


 


https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/12/pelosis-open-borders-border-patrol.html


"The newly elected president, Andrés López-Obrador, was gleeful during the election when he told his compadres they should all move to America, illegally.  His encouragement along with his pro-poverty policies will set the stage for another tsunami of illegal immigration." COLIN FLAHERTY

*

"They will destroy America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion. They have nothing but contempt for us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gangs, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY

*

The immigration debate has been raging for years.  Advocates for open borders can be found on both sides of the political aisle and in a wide variety of special interest groups who have come to see the immigration system that delivers an unlimited supply of cheap and exploitable labor, an unlimited supply of foreign tourists, and unlimited supply of foreign students and, for the lawyers, an unlimited supply of clients. MICHAEL CUTLER


"The targeting of El Paso seemed to be politically motivated, since the city is a Democratic-controlled island in Texas, where the Republican Party controls the state government and the state legislature. The city’s current congressman, Beto O’Rourke, who leaves office January 3, lost a close race for the US Senate seat in Texas and is now being talked up in the media as a potential challenger to President Trump in 2020."


Federal agents release more than 1,000 immigrants in El Paso, Texas


Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have released more than 1,000 immigrants in various locations in downtown El Paso, Texas over the last four days, in what appears to be a politically motivated effort to flood the city with impoverished people needing emergency shelter, food and medical care, including many hundreds of children as part of family groups, as well as pregnant women.
The mass releases began on Sunday night, December 23, when 200 Central American immigrants were taken to a Greyhound bus station in downtown El Paso, where many of them attempted to board buses, although they had no money or tickets. ICE made no provision for food or shelter for the immigrants, although night-time temperatures in the city were around 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Eventually four buses were brought in to house the migrants for the night, giving them a heated shelter.
On Monday, another 100 immigrants were released, then on Christmas Day nearly 200 more in downtown El Paso. Finally, on Wednesday, more than 500 immigrants were released, although this release was coordinated with charities and shelters in the El Paso area which were prepared to receive the influx. The first three releases were unannounced, and aid agencies had to respond on an emergency basis.
One aid official told the press, “About half of them were children, and some parents had more than one child with them.” The official said the migrants wanted “a place where they can sleep, make phone calls to their contacts or relatives in other parts of the country. Most of these folks are en route to another part of the country. They are not staying here in El Paso. They want to go to their sponsor or family members in other parts of the country. They just need a place for the night.”
ICE issued a statement in response to an inquiry by CNN about the releases, blaming “decades of inaction by Congress” and unfavorable court rulings that made it impossible for it to continue detaining all the Central American immigrants now crossing the US-Mexico border to seek asylum. An executive branch agency would only engage in such extraordinary public criticism of the legislative and judicial branches of the government if authorized by the White House.
The ICE statement said that its own detention facilities in the region were full and that it had no alternative but to release family groups that would otherwise be held longer than the 20 days provided under a court-supervised consent decree.
“To mitigate the risk of holding family units past the timeframe allotted to the government, ICE has curtailed reviews of post-release plans from families apprehended along the southwest border,” the statement said, without actually referring to the city of El Paso. “ICE continues to work with local and state officials and (nongovernmental) partners in the area so they are prepared to provide assistance with transportation or other services.”
The targeting of El Paso seemed to be politically motivated, since the city is a Democratic-controlled island in Texas, where the Republican Party controls the state government and the state legislature. The city’s current congressman, Beto O’Rourke, who leaves office January 3, lost a close race for the US Senate seat in Texas and is now being talked up in the media as a potential challenger to President Trump in 2020.
It is possible that ICE officials are also responding to resentment among rank-and-file officers who are not being paid because of the partial shutdown of the federal government, but are nonetheless required to continue working—and arresting and detaining immigrants as they cross the border—because they have been classified as “essential employees.”
All ICE public affairs officers have been furloughed for the duration of the shutdown, so it is not clear who was responsible for crafting the public response to the press inquiry.

Shutdown: Democrats Confident Trump Will Crack


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., hugs Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee victory celebration in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2006. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
2:12

Democrats are said to be confident that they will win the shutdown over border security — that President Donald Trump will cave to their demands and sign a spending bill to re-open all federal government departments without receiving any funding for his border wall.
Politico reported Thursday evening that Democrats “are plotting ways to reopen the government while denying the president even a penny more for his border wall when they take power Jan. 3.”
They are basing that conclusion on the past behavior of Republican leaders when facing a swamp of negative media coverage about national monuments closed, paychecks delayed, and office doors shut. While Trump and the GOP leadership are putting on a brave face, the Democrats plan simply to pass a”continuing resolution” bill to re-open the government once they take control of the House, and pass it along to the Senate, daring Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — long opposed to shutdowns — to refuse. “[T]hey’re confident that their political leverage will only increase the longer the shutdown lasts — a notion that some GOP leaders agree with privately,” Politico adds.
Breitbart TV



Current Time 0:34
/
Duration 1:36
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
In 2015, McConnell rejected the idea of shutting down the government unless Democrats cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, opining: ““There’s no education in the second kick of the mule … We’ve been down this path before.”
However, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-TX), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, told CNN Thursday that Democrats who expected Trump to fold as previous Republican leaders had were “misreading” the president. Trump’s border wall was a cornerstone of his election campaign in 2016, meaning that he may not be able to give up on the idea without alienating his voter base. As such, he may be “prepared for a very long shutdown,” as he said last week.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY:
Getting LA RAZA illegals into the voting booths will assure endless hordes of “cheap” labor and destroy the GOP to make America a one-party country and massive, border to open border LA RAZA welfare state.



The Pew Research Center found in 2012 that a plurality of Hispanic illegal aliens are Democrats, while only 4 percent said they identified with the Republican Party. 
JUDICIAL WATCH:
ILLEGALS VOTING IN MASSIVE NUMBERS IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA
‘Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.’  

‘California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country’



(THIS IS DATED. MEXICO NOW HAS INVADED ALL STATES )
The Mexican fascist separatist movement of M.E.Ch.A's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization  gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona,  California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah."

The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. 
County may be as high as 144%.



The Schumer & Pelosi show




Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the twin nutters of Congress, were certain they could beat Trump at his own game, but have made fools of themselves, as usual.  The stand-off is not over but with each passing day, the Democrats reveal more of their anti-American, pro-illegal immigration agenda.  Conservatives have been sounding the alarm for years: Democrats do not care about American citizens!  
We are an annoying inconvenience, especially those of us who do not buy what they are selling.  We vote against them, which makes them angry.  They lash out at us, call us names, impugn our intelligence with fervor.  All of the late-night comics, the Bill Mahers of the comedy branch of the entertainment industry, are especially venal.  Jimmy Kimmel has decried those who have contributed to the GoFundMe page to fund the border wall as meth addicts.  It was begun by a Vet, Brad Kolfage, who lost three limbs and it's raised nearly $15m.  
It appears that Democratic members of Congress are as snowflakey as millennials on our university campuses. They assume that anyone who opposes their ridiculous socialist, genderless, climate-alarmist, virtue-signaling directives is a Neanderthal, unfit to have an opinion.  It is then thoroughly acceptable to malign such people, those of us who oppose every aspect of their anti-America-as-founded agenda, in any and every  disgusting manner they can devise. 
The left is all about identity politics.  They assign all of us to a group -- racial, class, and/or all of their fabricated gender categories.  The right is all about individuals, their character, their talent, their contributions to society.  We do not care about skin color, economic class or sexual orientation.  We do care about good vs. evil, right vs. wrong.  This makes us quite villainous in the eyes of the left for whom everything is relative. For example, we do not think poverty causes crime, unlearned values of Western Civilization do.  Try to steal an election? It is moral if it takes out an opponent.  We are, it appears, the left vs. the right, very different on a neurological level. 
Schumer and Pelosi have armed guards whenever they are amongst the public.  But they are both fervent in their quest to deny us the right to bear arms and to prevent a wall on the southern border to protect us from the flood of lethal drugs that flow into the US.  They are impervious to the crimes of the barbaric gangs like MS13, no matter how many innocent Americans they kill.  They do not give a thought to the many illegals from terrorist nations that also seek to enter the country on a daily basis.  Schumer, Pelosi and their willing subjects in Congress ignore completely the horrific hazards that cross the border every day.  They want cheap labor, no matter how many Americans are left jobless, and they want, more than anything, a dependent underclass whom they mean to give the right to vote.  They already vote anyway, thanks to the Left's rejection of Common-sense voter ID.
If there were a television program based on Schumer and Pelosi, it would have to be a comedy; the two of them are so inept, so childish. They would be  Dumb and Dumber redux.  Each of them seems to believe they run the country and can dictate to the president how he will govern. They demand that Trump abandon the wall.  They have no intention of compromising; they only want to deny Trump and his supporters what they want -- border security that works.  So enraged, so benighted, by Trump's presidency, they would rather see us overrun by migrants from third-world nations, like those who have destroyed the UK, Germany, Sweden, and the rest of Europe, than protect America as a sovereign nation.
The "government shutdown" is just a ploy, many times overused by now, relatively meaningless to the lives of most Americans. The Schumer & Pelosi show will do everything they can to hype it as a disaster, but we all know it is nothing of the kind.  Trump must hold out for funding of the wall.  
While there have been some bad actors in our government in the past, Schumer and Pelosi are the worst of the worst.  They are equally arrogant, each thoroughly ignorant of reality beyond the bubble of wealth and privilege they inhabit.  They both believe themselves to be smarter than the rest of us, when in fact they are both really dim bulbs, long past their sell-by date.  Yes, Pelosi is good at raising money; how and why is a mystery.  That each of them is repeatedly re-elected does not say much for their constituents' familiarity with the Constitution, the law, American history or the facts in their own communities.  
San Francisco, Pelosi's district is now a hell-hole but for her walled compound.  New York too, like California, is a state that residents are fleeing as fast as they can.  Both states have been destroyed by moonbatty leftists; high taxes, dumbing down of education for political purposes, and the sacrifice of common sense to global warming alarmists.  Schumer and Pelosi have for years been on board with every silly attempt to restructure, to transform, American society.  They both jumped on the Obama bandwagon the moment he was elected.  Along with Obama, they are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration.  While their constant appearances on television are so often humorous (Pelosi's silly, practiced hand gestures and Schumer's relentless badgering of Trump),  they are not one bit funny.  They are just loathsome.
Photo credit: U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos



The Gospel According to Nancy: No Borders, Kill Babies (UNLESS THEY'RE LA RAZA ANCHOR BABIES!)



Tucker Carlson pointed out a few days ago how the already insufferable leader of the Congressional Democrats has recently been "ordained….an archbishop in the church of progressive sanctimony."  For a while now, Nancy Pelosi's been the country's expert on morality (e.g., border wall: immoral; abortion on demand: moral).  She's now taken to telling the country how much she prays, and she's urging others to do it, too – at least that old sinner, Donald Trump.  After last Thursday's televised squabble in the Oval Office, Pelosi shared with reporters how she told Trump she was praying for him and urged the president (whom she also called a "skunk" while ridiculing his manhood) to accept the Democrats' budget proposal with no funding for a border wall.  "In fact," she said with stomach-turning piety, "I asked him to pray over it."
When a smug person ends an argument by telling you to "pray over it," she's really saying, "Ask God.  He knows I'm right!"
Summarizing her and Chuck Schumer's meeting with Trump, she told the media, "I myself thought we should open the meeting with a prayer, which I did.  I told him about King Solomon, when he was to become king of the Jews, he prayed to God, he said: 'I need you to give me great understanding and wisdom, Lord.'"
King Solomon is Pelosi's favorite Bible character, especially because he proposed solving a problem by cutting a baby in half. 
Now Sister Nancy's praying for Trump to keep the government open so federal employees can finish their Christmas shopping.
It's an axiom that if a conservative says his faith informs his political decisions, he'll be condemned for establishing a state religion, while liberals get to veer back and forth over the church-state centerline as freely as those motorists who love to text while driving.  Right now the liberal media are applauding the way Pelosi "schooled President Donald Trump about the Bible," but it's not clear why.  It's not as if they're suddenly in favor of anyone being schooled in the Bible, especially anyone in a public classroom
Pelosi never bats an eye without a political motive.  This Saint Nancy act might be her attempt to occupy the spiritual high ground that, obviously, Donald Trump has shown no interest in occupying himself.  Pelosi wouldn't dare try this with a president like George W. Bush, who, while he didn't boast about his piety on TV, was recognized as genuine in his Christian faith – prompting the left's usual reaction: Ross Douthat wrote in 2006 that "the fear of theocracy has become a defining panic of the Bush era."
Theology was less of an issue for liberals during the Obama years; he was their messiah, and they just worshiped him.  Meantime, Obama conspicuously dissed orthodox Christians with everything from calculated snubs and criticism to gratuitously tormenting the Little Sisters of the Poor, all the while devotedly celebrating the unblemished virtues of Islam.  In 2015, Hillary bluntly stated that "[d]eep-seated ... religious beliefs ... have to be changed" to accommodate the unlimited abortion license.  Then, last year, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said it is "not negotiable" that "[e]very Democrat" support abortion.  Pelosi tried to mitigate Perez's remarks by saying "of course" there's room for pro-lifers in the Democratic Party, but try to find one who's not actually voting Perez-style.
This year, Pelosi watched the Democrats lurch wildly to the extreme left.  For decades before that, they were trusted allies in the left's war on conventional morality and religion (except Islam!) for being repressive, patriarchal, and counterrevolutionary.  It may be that, alarmed that the Democrat brand has become too materialistic, amoral, and atheist, she thinks she can give it religion.  Maybe she can draw an unfavorable comparison between the reprobate and undisciplined Donald Trump and herself: the "ardent, practicing Catholic," who exhorts the President to beg for "the great understanding and wisdom" that she (and Chuck Schumer?) have already been granted by God.  Haven't Republicans marched under the banner of morality and Christian values long enough?  Now that they've elected the unholy Trump, why can't the Democrats seize that banner for themselves?
For one thing, because no evangelical or conservative Catholic would ever buy it.  Sure, the Democratic Party is crowded with Catholics, but the serious ones left years ago.  The leading unserious Catholic is Pelosi herself, who professes her devotion to the faith but does it while living in open, willful defiance of the Church's crystal-clear teaching against abortion: "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified."
When her duplicity threatened to become an issue in 2004, Pelosi pretended that, moved by her "ardent" devotion to the Church, she had been studying the Church's teaching on the beginning of life "a long time," and she stated falsely to Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press that the Church has never defined it.  Asked when human life begins, she replied, "We don't know," and that "[t]he point is, that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose" – the "it" being when a human life begins, which shouldn't have an impact on the decision to get an abortion.  Easy mistake to make when your catechism is Roe v. Wade.
Later, when a reporter mentioned the Gosnell infanticides and challenged her own support for partial-birth abortion, an agitated Pelosi snarled back that "[a]s a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this[.] ... This shouldn't have anything to do with politics."  But as a politician, she never stops talking about it, and the sacred ground she was talking about wasn't human life, but the exercise of a mother's "free will" to terminate her child.  In response, New York's Cardinal Egan said, "Anyone who dares to defend that [the unborn] may be legitimately killed because another human being 'chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name."  Her own bishop reluctantly corrected her misstatements in a public letter, necessitated by "the widespread consternation among Catholics" of her deliberate distortions of  Catholic doctrine.  Pope Benedict counseled her, in person, on the Church's express teaching, "which enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators," to protect "human life at all stages of its development."  Pelosi, " the respectful Catholic" who presumed to tell Trump to pray for wisdom, emerged from thatmeeting no wiser for it, obtusely extolling the "Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming." 
Jesus warned against hypocrites who make a public display of praying "that they may be seen by men."  The way Pelosi pretends to exemplify "prayerful" politics, and the way she told Trump "in private" that she's praying for him – and immediately announced it in a televised press conference – is pure Pelosi: cynical, addlebrained, phony.  If it might hurt Trump, she'll pontificate how every MS-13 killer retains a "spark of divinity," then goes right back to her life's work snuffing out that spark from 60 million innocents and counting.  The Bible never says it's intrinsically evil to build a wall or protect a border, but it's still got that commandment against murder. 
Let the Democrats canonize this Pharisee if they need a patron saint.  Her feast day can fall on January 22.
T.R. Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn, Michigan.  You can email him at trclancy@yahoo.com.


Pelosi's Stake in Illegal Immigration



The Minuteman Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the co-author of the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is made up of citizen volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report illegal entry to the border patrol. For performing that thankless task in full compliance with the law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely maligned as fascists, racists, and even murderers. They have been driven off the speaker’s platform at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist politicians and their handmaidens in the liberal press.

So it was no surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore a recent press release, issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”

Gilchrist did not stop there. He demanded an investigation into Pelosi’s “economic stake in just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we deplore in Minutemen.” But you would never know it from the liberal media, who - while ignoring this demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker Hastert’s head in the wake of the Foley page controversy.

Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.

At the same time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to any effective border controls or documentation requirements. She opposed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, and voted against final passage of a border security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required that all businesses must use an electronic system to check if all new hires have the legal right to work in this country. She voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005. This year she opposed legislation requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID to prove eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.” She is dead wrong. For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was just recently reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall.

How many other terrorist suspects may have slipped through the system because Leftists like Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens? Instead she continues to advocate our recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that the Mexican consulates provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our border, called the “matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation to set up bank accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board airplanes, identify themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs, obtain drivers’ licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to illegally register to vote in our elections.

Pelosi also believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. She opposed legislation to deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information they learn about an individual's immigration status with Federal immigration authorities. Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect for the benefit of illegal aliens. Pelosi even voted against strengthening our immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists.

Jim Gilchrist cut to the chase with this devastating observation that the mainstream media does not want you to read:

"As we’ve shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but are working actively to subvert our legislative system to their own ends. Their only goal is votes, votes and more votes, no matter where they come from, no matter if they’re cast legally, no matter whether the person casting them is dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal alien."

Pelosi sees Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her pro-illegal alien agenda. More illegal aliens mean more votes for the Democrats and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers. So she even voted against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds to tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen patrols may be located! She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of business – permanently. She can count on the liberal press to distort the work of the Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed questions about her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to the mid-term elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House.

Gilchrist, of course, is accustomed to being vilified and prevented by the Left from getting his message out. In early October, he was prevented from finishing his speech at the "Minutemen Forum" sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans. Gilchrist had spoken for just a few minutes and managed to utter the words “I love the First Amendment” when a group of radical protestors took the stage and interrupted him, displaying a big banner saying "There are no illegals." More protestors then stormed the stage. Chaos erupted and the audience members who had come to hear Gilchrist speak never got the chance, which was precisely the protestors’ objective. As reported online by the staff of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and community members danced and chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and White, we smashed the Minutemen tonight!" They also put out a statement declaring:

“The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal.” (Emphasis added)

We have come to the point in this country where a bunch of radical protestors get to decide who is and who is not a legitimate voice in the debate on as critical a public policy issue as immigration. Such Leftists think that migration in a borderless world is a basic human right. They want no barriers, no guards, and no proof of lawful residency. They certainly do not want the Minutemen watching the border and reporting illegal entry to the authorities.

Leftist slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red herrings. It is not the human being who is illegal; it is what the human being does that may be illegal. One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is. Immigrants who follow our rules are welcome here. Those who do not abide by our laws have no right to be here. A person who breaks into your house without your permission does not deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the intruder may be much poorer than you. He has broken the law and deserves to be punished for what he has done. Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and residency similarly define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to protect ourselves. We are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws with certain core values. Those seeking to enter our country and remain here must learn to accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around. That is the way prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who passed through Ellis Island. Why should the law be thrown aside now?

What we are witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s sovereignty. Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us before the United Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the border with our money to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country illegally. They will probably get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats believe there should be no such thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first place. For the first time in our history, Americans are being asked to cede the right to decide how we define ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders to a globalist governance body. Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House Speaker to support the UN against America’s right to control its own borders? Do we really want to risk finding out?


It is high time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release ignored by the mainstream media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her personal stake in the illegal immigration issue before she can do even more damage as House Speaker.

President Lopez-Obrador and the Wall



Over the last few years, I've had conversations with friends in Mexico.  We usually end up talking about the border.  For us, the border is illegal immigration.  For Mexicans, it's guns and cash corrupting a very fragile political system.
As a Mexican friend said recently, the cartels have the politicians in their pockets, especially in the small towns where many of these vans full of cash and guns drive through.
There are many reasons to build that border wall, as former Secretary of Education William Bennett said on Sunday:   
By weight, 86 percent of heroin that entered the United States in 2016 was of Mexican origin, according statistics from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
"After 9/11 we shut down the border. When we shut down the border, drugs didn't come in," Bennett said. "If you shut down that border, if you close it off, if you build a wall, it can have a real and profound difference."
There is another reason, as any rational Mexican will tell you.
On a weekly basis, lots of cash and guns go south.  They are the profits and rewards of the drugs going north.  According to unofficial estimates:  
Officials in Mexico believe the tide of laundered money could be as high as $50bn per year, a sum equal to about three per cent of Mexico's legitimate economy -- more than all its oil exports or spending on key social programmes. Internationally, money laundering represents between two and five per cent of global GDP, or between $800bn and $2tn annually, according to the UNODC.
It would be more difficult for money or guns to go south if you had a wall on the border.  
So President Trump should pick up the phone and call President Lopez-Obrador.  He should thank him for keeping the caravans in Mexico and discuss the benefits of the border wall.  Why wouldn't the Mexican president support the wall?  I'm sure that the Mexican army and police would love to see that wall go up.
The lack of a stable border hurts both sides.
PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

300 Migrants Apprehended in Arizona Desert in 24 Hours



























Large group of aliens sitting down after being apprehended near the US-Mexico border in Arizona. (Photo: U.S. Border Patrol/Tucson Sector)
Photo: U.S. Border Patrol/Tucson Sector
2:35

Tucson Sector Border Patrol agents apprehended two large groups of Central American migrants who illegally crossed the Mexican border into Arizona. The groups consisted mostly of family units and unaccompanied minors. At least five of the migrants required medical assistance.

Agents assigned to the Ajo Border Patrol Station came upon a group of 242 migrants while they were patrolling the border on December 19 about 15 miles west of Lukeville, Arizona, according to information obtained by Breitbart News from U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials. The following morning, Casa Grande Station agents came upon a group of 64 migrants while patrolling the border in the Tohono O’odham Nation.  Both groups of migrants surrendered to the agents without incident, officials stated.
The agents reported both groups consisted mainly of family units — including juveniles and pregnant women. The groups came to the U.S. mainly from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Officials did not say if these groups broke away from or were connected to the so-called caravan migrants.
Border Patrol agents carried out initial screenings with the migrants which included an interview to determine if any of the migrants were experiencing health of safety-related issues. During that screening process, agents identified five people — one pregnant woman and four juveniles who required immediate medical assistance. Agents arranged transportation for those file migrants to a hospital in Goodyear, Arizona. Doctors treated the migrants and released them to Ajo Station agents for processing.
Agents at the Tucson station identified nine additional juveniles displaying flu-like symptoms The juveniles who ranged in age from one to thirteen were taken to a local hospital for evaluation and treatment, officials reported.
“Border Patrol agents save people every year who are overcome by the elements, including people found suffering from dehydration, heat stroke, hypothermia, drowning in the river, injuries, and left for dead by smugglers in some of the most remote areas of the desert when they enter the country illegally,” Tucson Sector officials said.
Agents processed the remaining migrants for immigration violations according to Tucson Sector protocols.
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for the Breitbart Border team. He is an original member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.


EXCLUSIVE: Mexican Gulf Cartel Taunts Trump with Caricature on Dope Load



























Trump Pot
Breitbart Border / Cartel Chronicles
2:21

MCALLEN, Texas – Cartel drug smugglers moved a 900-pound shipment of marijuana bearing a cartoon of U.S. President Donald Trump into Texas. The cartoon appears to mock President Trump and his border security comments. Border Patrol agents seized the load, preventing its delivery into the U.S.

Smugglers marked some of the drug bundles with a caricature of President Trump to not only identify the drug shipment but also to mock the politician. The Gulf Cartel, the criminal organization that operates south of McAllen, Texas, has used several different images to identify their drug loads including scorpions and popular comic book heroes. It is not known if cartons of Donald Trump have been used in the past.
Rio Grande Valley Sector Border Patrol agents seized the load this weekend in South McAllen after spotting several men on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande carrying bundles of marijuana towards the river, law enforcement sources working under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection revealed to Breitbart News. Some of the men made their way to the U.S. side but swam back as soon as they spotted federal authorities. U.S. Border Patrol agents called Mexican authorities to request their help in capturing the men. Mexico responded, saying no one would be responding to the area.
An hour after the initial smuggling attempt, U.S. Border Patrol agents spotted a group of men in rafts trying to move several bundles of marijuana across the river. Federal agents responded to the scene and found nine men. The men quickly ran back to Mexico leaving behind a white SUV loaded with 40 bundles of marijuana.
Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com. 
Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.


Congressional Report Finds Millions of Opioids Sent to Small-Town Pharmacies in West Virginia

BY SARAH LE, EPOCH TIMES

Nearly nine million opioids were shipped to a single pharmacy in the small town of Kermit, West Virginia, population 406, in just two years, according to a Congressional report released on Dec. 19.
In 10 years, 20.8 million opioids were distributed to pharmacies in Williamson, with a population of 3,000 people. From 2007 and 2012, drug distributors sent a total of more than 780 million hydrocodone and oxycodone pills to West Virginia.
More of these kinds of shocking examples can be found in the result of a bi-partisan investigation by the U.S. Energy and Commerce Committee into claims of “opioid-dumping,” or shipping large quantities of opioids from wholesale drug distributors to pharmacies in rural communities.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led by Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), spent more than 18 months investigating opioid-dumping in rural areas of West Virginia.
The state is “the epicenter of the nation’s opioid epidemic and the state with the highest drug overdose death rate in the country,” according to a statement by committee chairman Greg Walden and ranking member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) in a press release.
































BREAKING: Committee oversight report details findings of 18-month long, bipartisan investigation into alleged opioid-dumping in West Virginia by major opioid distributors >> https://energycommerce.house.gov/news/press-release/committee-report-details-alleged-opioid-dumping-in-west-virginia/ 




The investigation, which began in May 2017, found that the sixth-largest company in the United States played a significant role in shipping massive amounts of opioids to small towns in West Virginia.
McKesson Corp. ranks 6th on the Fortune 500 list, and the company was found to have shipped an average of 9,650 hydrocodone pills a day to the Sav-Rite No. 1 pharmacy in the town of Kermit in 2007.
At a May 8, 2018 hearing, McKesson president and CEO John Hammergren said the company initially set a “reasonable monthly threshold” of 8,000 pills a month for these drugs under its Lifestyle Drug Monitoring Program. (p. 226)
The shipments of 9,650 pills per day were “36 times the threshold amount set by the Lifestyle Drug Monitoring Program,” stated the report. (page 16) “McKesson did not submit suspicious order reports to the DEA regarding orders placed by West Virginia pharmacies until August 1, 2013.”
From April 2006 to 2016, McKesson supplied almost 300 million doses of hydrocodone and oxycodone to West Virginia pharmacies.
In addition, the report called out companies AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and others for their actions.
“Our bipartisan investigation revealed systemic failures by both distributors and the DEA that contributed to—and failed to abate—the opioid crisis in West Virginia,” stated Walden and Pallone.
In a statement obtained by the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Cardinal Health said it was only an “intermediary” in the prescription drug supply chain, but the company would “continue to implement rigorous anti-diversion controls.”
AmerisourceBergen also released a statement saying, “The comparatively few examinations of AmerisourceBergen’s actions primarily focus on due diligence surrounding physicians. AmerisourceBergen has virtually no interaction with physicians and limited legal ability to gather information on their practices and prescribing behavior.”
The Gazette-Mail reported that McKesson did not respond to requests for comment.
The committee issued a number of recommendations: including that Congress should consider enacting additional suspicious order requirements; the DEA should establish a data platform with third-party experts to provide more real-time data; and distributors should perform, document, and maintain robust due diligence files for both prospective and existing customers.


“We arrest drivers all the time and they send new ones up from Mexico. They never go away.”


























Exclusive – Immigration: The Hidden Driver of the Opioid Epidemic



opiod
File Photo: Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images
     342
3:54

More than 900 Americans died every week from opioid-related overdoses in 2017. Every American community, big or small, has experienced the epidemic’s merciless, corrosive advance across our cities and towns. It is human tragedy, a family tragedy, and a national crisis.
The issue is complicated by the fact that tens of thousands of Americans need prescription pain medications for legitimate medical reasons. Pharmaceutical companies have been innovative in creating potent opioid based medicines and they were, and remain, rewarded with successful sales.
Some patients, however, abuse legitimate drugs, lie to treating physicians, and illegally sell otherwise lawful drugs. But the real problem is not from frazzled doctors, bad patients or bad medicine. The overwhelming source of the problem is cheap but powerful drugs coming in from Mexico by way of China.
There is another core contributor to the problem that isn’t as widely known: the river of illegal aliens surging across our porous borders. As former LA Times reporter Sam Quinones’ award-winning book, Dreamland: The True Story of America’s Opioid Epidemic recounts, just as standards for the prescription of oxycodone and other painkillers were being tightened, a group of largely illegal Mexican immigrants from Xalisco, in the Mexican state of Nayarit, pioneered a new model of heroin distribution. It was in essence Uber for drug dealers, involving small franchises, with a nonviolent approach, carrying small amounts of drugs directly to addicts in their homes and neighborhoods, using a customer-first mentality and lots and lots of delivery drivers.
From Dreamland, “The delivery drivers did tours of six months and then left. If they were arrested they were deported, not prosecuted, because they never carried large amounts of dope.” With hundreds of new illegal aliens from the state entering the country every day, the police could arrest as many street-level dealers as they liked. As a DEA agent tells Quinones in another part of the book, “We arrest drivers all the time and they send new ones up from Mexico. They never go away.” There would always be new dealers, and the model could continue. An essential part of the process was the dealers returning home, where their ill-gotten gains provided them with status in their rural, poor homeland.
Another law enforcement officer recounts to Quinones, “Their system is a simply thing, reall, and relies on cheap, illegal Mexican labor, just the way that any fast-food joint does.” That flow of dealers is the linchpin of the Nayarit model, which has since spread nationwide. Illegal immigration is the lynchpin of the flow of dealers. Stop illegal immigration, and you stop the flow.
The biggest contributor to illegal immigration are the loopholes in our laws, and our lack of southern border infrastructure. The Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that in the last two years, because of loopholes, more than 250,000 illegal aliens have been caught at the border and released. If even one-tenth of one percent of those illegal aliens are drug dealers, the Border Patrol will have actually caught 600 traffickers and released them to wreak their havoc in our communities.
There is also, of course, the fact that a porous border allows drugs to flow across the border, but people are much easier to interdict than fentanyl. That is why we must also deliver on the president’s border wall–providing $5 billion in unrestricted funding this year, immediately. The funding bill is the last train leaving the station, to stop the flow of drugs and the illegal aliens that bring them from pouring into our communities. Nancy Pelosi will ensure when she takes over as Speaker of the House that nothing will be done.
More than 49,000 Americans died last year from heroin and opioid related overdoses. If open-borders liberal Democrats or weak-kneed establishment Republicans stop us from fixing the problem by closing the loopholes and building the wall, they will be accomplices to the next 49,000 deaths as much as the drug dealers of Xalisco.


PELOSI’S OPEN BORDERS FOR MORE CHEAP LABOR

The Mexican Army made two seizures in Ensenada on August 17 (1,036 pounds of meth, heroin, and fentanyl) and August 18 (1,653 pounds of meth, fentanyl, and marijuana).

The Mexican Army discovered an active drug lab on August 25 in Tecate and seized four tons of methamphetamine.

The Mexican Federal Police seized 350 pounds of methamphetamine in an active drug lab in Tijuana on August 26.
The Mexican Federal Police seized 20,000 fentanyl pills in an active lab in Mexicali on September 10.

The Mexican Federal Police seized 550 pounds of methamphetamine in Tijuana on September 12.

The Mexican Army seized 1,055 pounds of methamphetamine near the Arizona border on September 14.

A.G. JEFF SESSIONS DEFENDS U.S. BORDERS AGAINST THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND MEXICO’S INVASION.

"Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking." HEATHER MAC DONALD

 “Heroin is not produced in the United States. Every gram of heroin present in the United States provides unequivocal evidence of a failure of border security because every gram of heroin was smuggled into the United States. Indeed, this is precisely a point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions made during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 18, 2017 when he again raised the need to secure the U.S./Mexican border to protect American lives.” Michael Cutler …..FrontPageMag.com 

A.G. JEFF SESSIONS DEFENDS U.S. BORDERS AGAINST THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND MEXICO’S INVASION.
"Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking." HEATHER MAC DONALD
 “Heroin is not produced in the United States. Every gram of heroin present in the United States provides unequivocal evidence of a failure of border security because every gram of heroin was smuggled into the United States. Indeed, this is precisely a point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions made during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 18, 2017 when he again raised the need to secure the U.S./Mexican border to protect American lives.” Michael Cutler …..FrontPageMag.com 

CJNG is one of the most powerful cartels in Mexico and the Department of Justice considers it to be one of the five most dangerous transnational criminal organizations in the world — responsible for trafficking tons of cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl-laced heroin into the United States.
BEHEADINGS LONG U.S. OPEN BORDERS WITH NARCOMEX: The La Raza Heroin Cartels Take the Border and Leave Heads

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/highly-graphic-la-raza-heroin-cartels.html

AMERICA: MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE

… and in exchange we get 40 million Mexican flag wavers, homelessness, a housing crisis, heroin & opioid crisis and jobs for legals crisis…. ALL THANKS TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/08/how-cheap-is-staggering-cost-of-mexicos.html

“Thirteen years after welfare reform, the share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.”  Steven A. Camarota


THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS REMIND AMERICANS (Legals) THAT THERE IS NO (REAL) BORDER WITH NARCOMEX!

SHOCKING IMAGES OF CARTELS ON U.S. BORDERS:
“Heroin is not produced in the United States. Every gram of heroin present in the United States provides unequivocal evidence of a failure of border security because every gram of heroin was smuggled into the United States. Indeed, this is precisely a point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions made during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 18, 2017 when he again raised the need to secure the U.S./Mexican border to protect American lives.” Michael Cutler …..FrontPageMag.com


LOS ANGELES – GATEWAY FOR THE LA RAZA MEX DRUG CARTELS

NARCOMEX in LA RAZA-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES – Western gateway for the MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS and MEXICO’S SECOND LARGEST CITY.


Federal agents raided Q.T Fashion and numerous other businesses in the downtown fashion district Wednesday, cracking down on a scheme that cartels are increasingly relying on to get their profits — from drug sales, kidnappings and other illegal activities — back to Mexico, authorities said.

Nine people were arrested in raids targeting 75 locations, and $90 million was seized — $70 million in cash. In one condo, agents found $35 million stuffed in banker boxes. At a mansion in Bel-Air, they discovered $10 million in duffel bags.

"Los Angeles has become the epicenter of narco-dollar money laundering with couriers regularly bringing duffel bags and suitcases full of cash to many businesses," said Robert E. Dugdale, the assistant U.S. attorney in charge of federal criminal prosecutions in Los Angeles.

LOS ANGELES: MEXICO’S SECOND LARGEST CITY AND  GATEWAY FOR THE LA RAZA HEROIN CARTELS          




Every CEO in every company sees the business opportunity: Will I earn higher profits by replacing my American staff with cheaper H-1B workers? The answer is an obvious yes.
The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with foreign labor. That process spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. The policy also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.

A NATION DIES OF OPIOID ADDICTION
AMERICAN BIG PHARMA, RED CHINA and NARCOMEX PARTNER FOR THE BIG BUCKS
“The drug epidemic is the product of capitalism and the policies of the capitalist parties, both Democrats and Republicans. There is, first of all, the role of the pharmaceutical companies, which have amassed huge profits from the deceptive marketing of opioid pain killers, which they claimed were not addictive. Prescriptions for opioids such as Percocet, Oxycontin and Vicodin skyrocketed from 76 million in 1991 to nearly 259 million in 2012. What are the numbers and profits now?

OPIOID AMERICA: CHINA AND MEXICO PARTNER TO ADDICT AMERICA

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-opioid-war-on-america-chin

 PRINCETON REPORT:

American middle-class is addicted, poor, jobless and suicidal…. Thank the corrupt government for surrendering our borders to 40 million looting Mexicans and then handing the bills to middle America?

OPIOID MURDERS BY BIG PHARMA

“While drug distributors have paid a total of $400 million in fines over the past 10 years, their combined revenue during this same period was over $5 trillion.”

“Opioids have ravaged families and devastated communities across the country. Encouraging their open use undermines the rule of law and will do nothing to quell their continued abuse, let alone the problems underlying mass addiction.”

THE LA RAZA INVASION:


The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.   NEIL MUNRO


Opioid Nation

Pain Killer: An Empire of Deceit and the Origin of America’s Opioid Epidemic (Expanded and Updated Edition)

by Barry Meier
Random House, 223 pp., $27.00

Dopesick: Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company That Addicted America

by Beth Macy
Little, Brown, 376 pp., $28.00

American Overdose: The Opioid Tragedy in Three Acts

by Chris McGreal
PublicAffairs, 316 pp., $27.00

American Fix: Inside the Opioid Addiction Crisis—and How to End It

by Ryan Hampton, with Claire Rudy Foster
All Points, 290 pp., $27.99
Jerome Sessini/Magnum Photos
A man who has just taken heroin, Philadelphia, April 2018
The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, up from some 64,000 the previous year and 52,000 the year before that—a staggering increase with no end in sight. Most involved opioids.
A few definitions are in order. The term opioid is now used to include opiates, which are derivatives of the opium poppy, and opioids, which originally referred only to synthesized drugs that act in the same way as opiates do. Opium, the sap from the poppy, has been used throughout the world for thousands of years to treat pain and shortness of breath, suppress cough and diarrhea, and, maybe most often, simply for its tranquilizing effect. The active constituent of opium, morphine, was not identified until 1806. Soon a variety of morphine tinctures became readily available without any social opprobrium, used, in some accounts, to combat the travails and boredom of Victorian women. (Thomas Jefferson was also an enthusiast of laudanum, one of the morphine tinctures.) Heroin, a stronger opiate made from morphine, entered the market later in the nineteenth century. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that synthetic or partially synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, methadone, oxycodone (Percocet), hydrocodone (Vicodin), and hydromorphone (Dilaudid), were developed.
In 1996 a new form of oxycodone called OxyContin came on the market, and three recent books—Beth Macy’s Dopesick, Chris McGreal’s American Overdose, and Barry Meier’s Pain Killer—blame the opioid epidemic almost entirely on its maker, Purdue Pharma. OxyContin is formulated to be released more slowly and therefore lasts longer. The company claimed that the drug’s slow release would make it less addictive than ordinary oxycodone, since the initial euphoria—the high—would be muted. Based on this theory and little else, the FDA permitted OxyContin to contain twice the usual dose of oxycodone and carry on the label this statement: “Delayed absorption, as provided by OxyContin tablets, is believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug.” (The FDAofficial who oversaw OxyContin’s approval later got a plum job at Purdue Pharma.)
The company launched an extraordinarily aggressive and successful marketing campaign to convince physicians that they had the holy grail of a nonaddictive opioid. It sent hundreds of sales representatives to doctors’ offices to tout OxyContin, and offered doctors dinners and trips to meetings at luxury resorts. And it paid more than five thousand doctors, pharmacists, and nurses to train as speakers to tour the country promoting OxyContin. But like all opioids, OxyContin is addictive. And soon enough, users found that they could crush the pills or dissolve the coating, then snort the drug like cocaine or inject it like heroin. Each pill would then become essentially an instantaneous double dose of oxycodone.
OxyContin almost immediately became a blockbuster—that is, a prescription drug with annual sales of more than $1 billion. It was widely used not just by those for whom the prescriptions were written, but by their relatives and friends. The pills were also sold or stolen or otherwise diverted to street use. In addition, “pill mills” sprang up, where unethical physicians wrote innumerable prescriptions for OxyContin and refilled them automatically without ever seeing the patient. McGreal describes “one of the most productive pill mills in the country,” which operated in the small town of Williamson, West Virginia—known locally as “Pilliamson.” The town, he says, “was awash in pills,” and people came by car and bus to line up at the clinic and cooperating drugstores. “Investigators calculated that in 2009 alone, the clinic pulled in $4.6 million in a town with a population of little more than three thousand people.”
It’s impossible to know how many new prescriptions were obtained in each of these ways, but one way or another, OxyContin addiction grew into an epidemic. The epicenter was central Appalachia, and its victims were mainly white people in small, economically depressed coal-mining communities in southern West Virginia and parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, and southwestern Virginia.1
The three books that focus on Purdue Pharma are in a sense the same book. Barry Meier first published Pain Killer in 2003. The new edition (released by a different publisher) is much the same, with some updating and re-arrangements. The two new books, Dopesick and American Overdose, cover the same story as it unfolded in the same region of the country. Both Macy and McGreal refer to the 2003 edition of Meier’s book (but not the new edition, probably because they could not have known of it at the time their books were written). All three books are gripping and well written, with detailed accounts, one after another (perhaps too many), of families decimated by the epidemic. And they all tell the story of Art Van Zee, a physician in southwestern Virginia, who in 2000 became aware of the growing epidemic of OxyContin there and tried heroically to get Purdue Pharma and the FDA to take responsibility for it.
Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family that founded it are very hard to defend. By aggressively marketing OxyContin, even after they knew it was being widely abused, the family became enormously wealthy. But the FDA was also guilty. It permitted OxyContin to be sold as a relatively nonaddictive opioid without good evidence to support that claim, and it should have been obvious that the pills might be crushed or dissolved to make them even more addictive. Van Zee, along with Beth Davies, a nun who ran the local substance abuse clinic, saw Lee County, Virginia, blanketed with OxyContin prescriptions and watched the deaths mount, particularly among young people. They informed Purdue, which simply stonewalled. Over the following year, Van Zee devoted himself completely to the cause, meeting with company and FDAofficials and testifying before a Senate committee, trying to get Purdue to reformulate the drug or even withdraw it from the market.
In 2007 Purdue pled guilty to criminal charges of fraudulently marketing OxyContin and settled for $600 million in fines and penalties. Three executives pled guilty to misdemeanor charges and were sentenced to four hundred hours of community service and lesser fines. The company’s fine was trivial in comparison with its profits from OxyContin. In fact, almost every other major pharmaceutical company has had to settle both civil and criminal charges of fraudulent marketing for much more (the record settlement is now GlaxoSmithKline’s $3 billion, for a variety of violations, including falsely promoting drugs and failing to report safety data). These kinds of fines are just the cost of doing business. And so it was for Purdue Pharma, although the fraudulent marketing stopped and a warning was added to the label.
The problem with these three books, and it’s a big one, is that they treat the Purdue story as though it were the whole story of the opioid epidemic. But OxyContin did not give rise to opioid addiction, although it jump-started the current epidemic. Heroin has been a common street drug ever since it was banned in 1924. Morphine has also been widely abused.
Nor would taking OxyContin off the market end the epidemic. The overwhelming majority of opioid deaths are caused not by OxyContin but by combinations of fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine, often brought in from China via Mexican cartels, and frequently taken along with benzodiazepines (such as Valium or Xanax) and alcohol. These drugs are cheaper and stronger, particularly fentanyl. Fentanyl was first synthesized in 1960, and soon became widely used as an anesthetic and powerful painkiller. It is legally manufactured and highly effective when used appropriately, often for short medical procedures such as colonoscopies. The illicit production and street use is relatively new, but it is now the main cause of most opioid-related deaths (nearly 90 percent in Massachusetts).
The steady increase in opioid deaths after OxyContin came on the market has been supplanted by a much faster increase starting around 2013, when heroin and fentanyl use increased dramatically. We now have two epidemics—the overuse of prescription drugs and the much more deadly and now largely unrelated epidemic of street drugs. By concentrating on the first, we are closing the barn door after the horse is long gone.
Efforts to deal with the epidemic have been all over the map—literally. Possession of illegal drugs (and legal drugs illicitly used) is still a federal crime, and prisons are still full of people whose only crime was that. But many states, counties, and cities have begun to regard opioid addiction as a public health issue, not a police issue. They are opening centers in which people who seek help are shifted to less powerful opioids like methadone and buprenorphine (Subutex)—a method known as “medication-assisted treatment,” or MAT. Naloxone (Narcan), the antidote for an opioid overdose, is now sold over the counter in almost all states. If used immediately, it can prevent an otherwise inevitable death from a drug overdose. And drug courts, which may drop criminal charges in return for an agreement to submit to treatment and monitoring, are becoming more common.
Nan Goldin/Marian Goodman Gallery
Nan Goldin: Withdrawal/Quicksand, Berlin/NY, February 2016, 2016
Most controversial are facilities called “safe injection sites,” or SIFs, where drug users can come to use drugs without fear of arrest. The staff provides clean needles to reduce the risk of HIV and hepatitis C infections, and is prepared to resuscitate addicts who overdose. This approach is called “harm reduction.” The problem is that addicts must still buy drugs illegally, and it’s almost impossible to know exactly what is in them.
In a recent New York Times Op-Ed, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, came down hard on SIFs. He warned that “it is a federal felony to maintain any location for the purpose of facilitating illicit drug use,” and that “cities and counties should expect the Department of Justice to meet the opening of any injection site with swift and aggressive action.” He was referring to plans to operate SIFs in San Francisco, New York City, and Seattle, and similar options now being considered by Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Later in the same article, however, he softened, saying we should “help drug users get treatment and aggressively prosecute criminals who supply the deadly poison,” suggesting that perhaps he doesn’t believe simple possession is so bad, after all.
But the proposed solutions to this epidemic range from the extreme of “lock ’em up” to “drug abuse is no less a disease than cancer or diabetes” and should therefore be met with the same solicitude. Ryan Hampton exemplifies the latter view in his angry book, American Fix. A former drug user himself and now an impassioned advocate and activist, he insists that drug abuse should be regarded like other diseases. He doesn’t acknowledge that for most users there was a moment of choice in becoming addicted that is not the case for people with cancer or diabetes. After receiving Dilaudid for a painful ankle, Hampton decided to ask for more, and then more. I think one can make the argument for sympathy with drug users and for understanding how the quest for drugs ceases to be under their control without claiming an analogy to diseases like cancer or diabetes.
Hampton paints a vivid picture of the downward spiral of addiction. When he “leveled up to IV heroin,” he explains, “it was cheaper than pills, easier to get hold of, and a quarter the cost. More important, nobody was tracking us in a database.”
Where Hampton is at his best is in his exposure of the profiteering and corruption in the burgeoning addiction industry—what he calls “the treatment industry swamp.” In the swamp, he found
lack of effective treatment, exorbitant costs, and ridiculous twenty-eight-day vacations disguised as medical help, fed by patient brokers who run a completely legal, high-end human trafficking cartel to push tens of thousands of patients through the broken system.
He was referring to the panoply of treatment centers, both residential and outpatient, and detox facilities, where users are supposed to be weaned from drugs before entering “sober living houses.” As in so much of American medicine, even nonprofit insurers like Medicaid outsource the actual delivery of care to for-profit companies that charge whatever the market will bear. According to Hampton, “one of the most expensive treatment centers in America, Passages Malibu, costs more than $60,000 per month.” Costs are settled by a crazy quilt of payers, including state and local governments, Medicaid, other federal programs, private insurers, and often by desperate families. Not surprisingly, only a minority of users are ever treated.
In 2017 the Aspen Institute’s Health Strategy Group, led by two former secretaries of health and human services, Tommy Thompson and Kathleen Sebelius, and consisting of twenty-four members from various health-related fields (I am among them), met for three days to examine the opioid epidemic. The deliberations were preceded by four presentations by experts in the field. In the final broad and comprehensive report, the group made a strong case for decriminalizing drug addiction and instead regarding it as a public health issue. Among the five major recommendations was a call for more research into nearly all aspects of the epidemic. It’s startling how little we know, given the immensity of the problem and the media attention it receives.2
We need to know, for instance, how effective opioids are for different kinds of pain, including long-term treatment for chronic pain. We need to know how opioids compare in effectiveness and side effects with acetaminophen (which can cause liver failure) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen (which can cause gastrointestinal bleeding). We need to know how the death rate in the opioid epidemic compares with the rate of use. We know the death rate is soaring, but does that mean the rate of use is, too, or is it simply a result of the lethality of the drug mixtures obtained on the street? We need to know how much diversion there is now from legitimate treatment to abuse. That includes diversion of methadone and buprenorphine, which are also opioids and can be sold on the street or added to the user’s illicit intake. According to Macy, “Buprenorphine is the third-most-diverted opioid in the country, after oxycodone and hydrocodone.”
We need to know how many addicts want to quit, since most don’t seek treatment. Why don’t they? And finally, we need to know the best approach to treatment. There is concern, for example, that detox might be dangerous, because the first dose after a relapse can be deadly if the user is no longer tolerant to the drug’s effects. Is providing methadone or buprenorphine indefinitely, even for life, the best treatment among bad choices? There is plenty of speculation about all of these questions, and suggestive findings about some of them, but little solid evidence.
We also need to remember an essential and crucial fact: opioids do have a legitimate purpose, and it’s an enormously important one. They treat severe pain, often when no other treatment is effective. Patients suffering from cancer are sometimes completely dependent on opioids for relief, as are some patients with other forms of severe pain. As the authors of the books acknowledge, pain was systematically undertreated throughout most of the twentieth century. After centuries of free and easy use of opioids, there was a sudden reaction in the United States at the start of the twentieth century, which had much to do with anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly animus toward Chinese immigrants who were widely assumed to be opium addicts. (It also paralleled the growing reaction against alcohol that resulted in Prohibition.) The 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act imposed strict regulations on the use of opioids; they had to be prescribed by physicians, and then only for patients not already taking them. Prohibition lasted for only thirteen years, but the dread of opioid addiction stayed with us until the 1980s and caused cruel suffering for generations of patients.
Even in hospitals where cancer patients lay dying in agony, opioids were administered reluctantly, in small doses, and at infrequent intervals. When I was in training in a teaching hospital in the 1960s, there was an awful ritual to it. The drugs were administered according to a pro re nata (prn) regimen (ostensibly “as needed”) that required the patient to wait out a four-hour interval, no matter how severe the pain, and then request the next dose. Those who badly wanted the drug had to keep track of the time and have the strength and endurance to summon a nurse if one was nearby. Patients were sometimes inhibited in asking for the next dose by a desire to please the medical staff and not be a nuisance, or by their own belief that taking morphine was somehow wrong or reflected weakness. The extent to which nurses and physicians shared the common fears of addiction influenced their readiness to respond. Desperate patients would count the minutes toward the end of the interval, hoping they could flag down a nurse. Many doctors and nurses interpreted the anxiety and clock-watching as a sign of growing addiction, not inadequate pain relief. These patients were labeled “drug-seeking” and often punished for it by being denied the very help they needed.
During the 1980s there was a welcome change in that attitude, partly due to the hospice movement that had begun in the United Kingdom. The prn system became more flexible, or was eliminated altogether. There was a realization that because pain is entirely subjective, there is no way to measure or verify it, and even patients with the same condition could differ in their experience of pain. Instead of having to flag down nurses, patients were asked at shorter intervals whether they needed pain relief, and how much. In 2001 the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations proclaimed pain the fifth vital sign, to be assessed in every patient, along with heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, and blood pressure. Although the motivation for this move was laudable, it presented problems, since, unlike the other four vital signs, pain can’t be objectively quantified.
The authors of the books under review recognize the history of inadequate treatment of pain throughout most of the twentieth century, but they don’t give it its due. They concentrate instead on the reaction of the 1980s, which they consider excessive and an underlying cause of the opioid epidemic. In 1982 I wrote an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, which began, “Few things a doctor does are more important than relieving pain.” I still believe that. I ended with these words: “Pain is soul-destroying. No patients should have to endure intense pain unnecessarily. The quality of mercy is essential to the practice of medicine; here, of all places, it should not be strained.”
The opioid epidemic, while horrifying, is still outweighed by alcohol deaths, which are also increasing, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Hampton writes, “If my first drug of choice came with a prescription, the second one, alcohol, was culturally embedded and used to celebrate at every turn of events.” In 2016, when there were 64,000 deaths in the US from the drug epidemic, there were 90,000 from alcohol (including accidents and homicides caused by inebriated people, as well as direct effects, mainly cirrhosis of the liver). Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause 480,000 deaths a year. I do not intend to minimize the opioid epidemic. Far from it. What I want to underscore is the differences in these three epidemics. Alcohol and cigarettes have no medical or practical uses of any kind. Yet we permit their use if regulated. In contrast, opioids do have medical uses, and they are important.
The opioid epidemic is usually seen as a supply problem. If we can interdict the supply of prescription opioids, the thinking goes, we can stanch the epidemic. But that is unlikely to work for two reasons. First, as I pointed out, this is no longer mainly an epidemic of prescription drugs but of street drugs. And second, it creates an onerous obstacle for doctors and outpatients who require pain treatment. More and more, they have to satisfy regulations expressly designed to restrict access to prescription opioids. Some make sense. For example, it’s reasonable to monitor opioid prescriptions to detect pill mills. It’s also reasonable to flag users who “doctor-shop,” that is, see several doctors at once to try to get multiple doses of opioids.
But other requirements are meant simply to inconvenience both doctors and patients until they give up. For example, in Massachusetts doctors must limit their first-time opioid prescriptions to seven days. That can be more than an inconvenience for ill patients in pain. Macy quotes a letter from a friend with severe back pain from scoliosis. “‘My life is not less important than that of an addict,’ my friend wrote,…explaining that her new practitioner requires her to submit to pill counts, lower-dose prescriptions, and more frequent visits for refills, which increase her out-of-pocket expense.” Even more serious is a new shortage of opioids for injection in cancer centers.
For physicians, who are already weighed down by innumerable bureaucratic requirements, these restrictions present one more hoop to jump through, and many simply won’t do it. Instead, they’ll send the patient away with some Advil and hope it does the trick, even though they know it probably won’t. The regulations are having their intended effect. In Massachusetts, opioid prescribing has decreased by 30 percent. Meanwhile, the epidemic of street drugs continues apace. McGreal raises the possibility that reducing access to prescription opioids might feed the demand for heroin. Macy quotes an addiction specialist who laments that “our wacky culture can’t seem to do anything in a nuanced way.”
I believe the modern opioid epidemic is now more a demand problem than a supply problem. Three years ago, the Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton published an explosive paper about the surprising rise in mortality, starting at the turn of this century, among middle-aged white non-Hispanic men and women. The increase was greater in women than in men. They found three main causes: drug and alcohol overdoses, suicide, and alcohol-associated liver disease. They later called these “deaths of despair,” because they were most common among workers in tenuous jobs, with only a high school education or less, who were struggling to stay afloat in isolated regions of the country. Dragged down by these deaths, in the past three years overall life expectancy in the United States has started to drop.
It’s not hard to see reasons for the despair. Most working-class Americans have not benefited from our booming economy, the fruits of which have gone almost entirely to the richest 10 percent. For the bottom half of the population, income has scarcely budged since the 1970s, while expenses for necessities like housing, health care, education, and child care have skyrocketed. In Appalachia, where the opioid epidemic first took hold, many coal miners were unemployed and would probably remain so. People expected they wouldn’t live as well as their parents had, and had little hope for their children. It is true that African-Americans still have higher overall mortality rates than whites, but that gap is closing rapidly for people under the age of sixty-five, particularly for women. By 2027, white women will have higher mortality rates than African-American women. Mortality for African-American men is falling even faster than for African-American women; it is projected to be equal to that of white men by 2030. But the epidemic has extended to all parts of the country and to all ethnic groups, so it’s unclear how the effects will be distributed in the future.
By the middle of this decade, the grotesque inequality in this country began to get the attention it deserves. And the growing awareness of that inequality fed the populist passion that, when twisted and distorted, produced the election of Donald J. Trump. It’s probably not coincidental, then, that the opioid epidemic got its second wind at about that time. It certainly marks the time when the opioids of choice changed from prescription drugs to the witches’ brew of street drugs. Did the epidemic explode because people were becoming aware that the American Dream was no longer theirs to dream?
As long as this country tolerates the chasm between the rich and the poor, and fails even to pretend to provide for the most basic needs of our citizens, such as health care, education, and child care, some people will want to use drugs to escape. This increasingly seems to me not a legal or medical problem, nor even a public health problem. It’s a political problem. We need a government dedicated to policies that will narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and ensure basic services for everyone. To end the epidemic of deaths of despair, we need to target the sources of the despair.


FIGHTING THE RICH, DEMOCRAT AND GOP POLS FOR OUR JOBS AND BORDERS.
Amnesty is all about keeping wages depressed and passing the true cost along to what is left of the America middle-class.
The huge inflow of migrants and asylum seekers forced officials to issue 400,000 work permits in 2017. That is roughly one new migrant worker for every 10 Americans who entered the workforce that year. The huge inflow has also jammed the immigration courts, ensuring that new migrants can work for a few years before a judge decides their case.
The inflow of asylum-seeking migrants, nonetheless, is far smaller than the inflow of legal immigrants and temporary visa-workers, which added roughly 2 workers in 2017 for every four Americans who entered the workforce.
Nationwide, the U.S. establishment’s economic policy of using legal migration to boost economic growth shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white collar and blue collar foreign labor. That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor that blue collar and white collar employees.
The cheap labor policy widens wealth gaps, reduces high tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.
Immigration also steers investment and wealth away from towns in heartland states because coastal investors can more easily hire and supervise the large immigrant populations who prefer to live in coastal cities. In turn, that investment flow drives up coastal real-estate prices, pricing poor U.S. Latinos and blacks out of prosperous cities, such as Berkeley and Oakland. NEIL MUNRO










Juárez Forced to Re-Deploy Military as Cartel War Rages on Border


Juarez El Paso
AP Photo
  77
2:57

The border city of Ciudad Juárez, abutting El Paso, Texas, announced the gradual re-deployment of joint police and military patrols to quell cartel violence and enhance local security.
The implementation of joint patrols involving elements of state, federal, and municipal police in conjunction with the Mexican Army was announced by Ciudad Juárez Mayor Héctor Armando Cabada and State Security Director Oscar Aparicio, according to local reporting. The joint operation was initiated this week and includes a plan to map out cartel hotspots.
The joint patrols were initially deployed in late October after police personnel suffered 10 attacks from cartel gunmen in less than one month–leaving two officers dead and several wounded. After the surge, violence began to trend downward until recently. During the months of September and October, homicides were significantly down compared to the summer, but attacks against security personnel spiked at an alarming rate.
The most recent violence is attributed to splits between street gangs aligned with warring cartels as they fight for methamphetamine street sales. The “Mexicles” and “Artistas Asesinos” were previously aligned with the Sinaloa Cartel, yet are now at war with each other after a faction of Mexicles re-aligned with “La Línea” and “Los Aztecas,” the deadly rivals of the Sinaloa gangs. In another area of Ciudad Juárez, an “Old Guard” faction of Los Aztecas is warring with a newer faction of “Los Aztecas.” These splits are contributingto numerous homicides and attacks against official personnel.
On Tuesday, the municipal police arrested three gang members belonging to a faction of the Sinaloa-aligned Los Mexicles after police found nearly 56 pounds of methamphetamine inside their vehicle, according to local reporting.
The all-time homicide record for Ciudad Juárez was set in 2010 with 3,075 officially recorded. The 2018 unofficial count exceeds 1,200, according to local media and statistics compiled from the state attorney general’s office.
Robert Arce is a retired Phoenix Police detective with extensive experience working Mexican organized crime and street gangs. Arce has worked in the Balkans, Iraq, Haiti, and recently completed a three-year assignment in Monterrey, Mexico, working out of the Consulate for the United States Department of State, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Program, where he was the Regional Program Manager for Northeast Mexico (Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas.) You can follow him on Twitter. He can be reached at robertrarce@gmail.com


This will crack you up!



Mexican Presidents Deny They Took Bribes from El Chapo







  14 Nov 201898

Two former Mexican presidents publicly denied taking bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel. The statements came after the legal defense for Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera made contrary claims this week.


The drug lord is facing several money laundering and drug trafficking charges at a federal trial in New York. In his opening statement, defense attorney Jeffrey Lichtman spoke of bribes “including the very top, the current president of Mexico and the former.”

Soon after the statements became public, Mexico’s government issued a statement denying the allegations. Eduardo Sanchez, the spokesman for current Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said the statements were false and “defamatory.”



El gobierno de @EPN persiguió, capturó y extraditó al criminal Joaquín Guzmán Loera. Las afirmaciones atribuidas a su abogado son completamente falsas y difamatorias

— Eduardo Sánchez H. (@ESanchezHdz) November 13, 2018

Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon took to social media to personally deny the allegations, claiming that neither El Chapo or the Sinaloa Cartel paid him bribes.


Son absolutamente falsas y temerarias las afirmaciones que se dice realizó el abogado de Joaquín “el Chapo” Guzmán. Ni él, ni el cártel de Sinaloa ni ningún otro realizó pagos a mi persona.
— Felipe Calderón (@FelipeCalderon) November 13, 2018
Under Guzman’s leadership, the Sinaloa Cartel became the largest drug trafficking organization in the world with influence in every major U.S. city.
The allegations against Pena Nieto are not new. In 2016, Breitbart News reported on an investigation by Mexican journalists which revealed how Juarez Cartel operators funneled money into the 2012 presidential campaign. The investigation was carried out by Mexican award-winning journalist Carmen Aristegui and her team. The subsequent scandal became known as “Monexgate” for the cash cards that were given out during Peña Nieto’s campaign. The allegations against Pena Nieto went largely unreported by U.S. news outlets.
Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com
Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.



Mexico: Where Is Your Shame?
At a demonstration Wednesday in Mexico City against Arizona's law.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Immigration: Mexico's government gloated triumphantly after a federal judge's injunction blocked Arizona's immigration law. But it's no victory for Mexico. In fact, Mexico's leaders ought to be mortified.
As radical immigration activists crowed with glee and the Obama administration claimed victory, Mexico's government joined the applause. 
Calling Judge Susan Bolton's injunction Wednesday "a step in the right direction," Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa declared: "The government of Mexico would like to express its recognition for the determination demonstrated by the federal government of the United States and the actions of the civil organizations that organized lawsuits against the SB 1070 law."
In reality, it ought to be ashamed. Supposedly framed as an issue of federal power pre-empting state power, it's hardly Mexico's business. But Mexico made a big show of saying its interest was in protecting its nationals from the dreadful racism of Arizona that its own citizens, curiously enough, keep fleeing to.
Espinosa said her government was busy collecting data on civil rights violations and her department had issued an all-out travel warning to Mexican nationals about Arizona. 
That's where Mexico's hypocrisy is just too much.
First, Mexico encourages illegal immigration to the U.S. Oh, it says it doesn't, but it prints comic book guides for would-be illegal immigrants and provides ID cards for illegals once they get here. In Arizona alone, Mexico keeps five consulates busy.
 That's not out of love for its own citizens, but because Mexicans send cash back to Mexico that helps finance the government.
Instead of selling its wasteful state-owned oil company or getting rid of red tape to create jobs in Mexico, Mexico spends the hard currency from remittances. It fails to look at why its citizens leave.
According to the Heritage Foundation-Wall Street Journal 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Mexico's big problem is — no shock — government corruption, where it ranks below the world average.
That's where Mexico's cartels come in.
Mexico's encouragement of illegal immigration undercuts its valiant war against its smuggling cartels. The cartels' prowess and firepower have made them the only ones who can smuggle effectively across the border. U.S. law enforcers say they now control human-smuggling on our southern border.
Feed them immigrants and they grow more cash-rich — and right now, immigrant smuggling is about a third of the cartels' income.
Mass graves and car bombings are signs of criminal organizations getting bigger, and more powerful. Juarez, which has lost 5,000 people this year, bleeds because cartels fight over not just who gets the drug routes, but who gets the illegal-immigrant smuggling routes, too.
Aside from the cartel mayhem in Mexico, the bodies are piling up in the Arizona desert and U.S. Border Patrol rescues of abandoned illegals left to die have risen. 
 It's not the desert's fault, and it's certainly not Uncle Sam's fault, as activists claim. No, it's the fact that Mexicans are encouraged to emigrate. Criminal cartels don't fear abandoning their human cargo in the desert, as long as Mexico does nothing and blames Uncle Sam.
Hearing Mexico's government now cheer the Arizona ruling, which will only encourage more illegal immigration, gives the country's regime a pretty inhuman face. 
If Mexico had any decency, it would do all it could to discourage illegal immigration and keep a respectful silence about Arizona.
It needs U.S. support for its war on cartels. Instead of insulting American citizens, Mexico should confront directly the reasons why its people are so desperate to leave, and do all in its power to destroy the cartels that are slowly killing the nation. That includes defunding the murderous gangs by halting illegal immigration.








Billionaire Class Enjoys 15X the Wage Growth of American Working Class











cash-in-hand
AFP
3:00


The billionaire class — the country’s top 0.01 percent of earners — have enjoyed more than 15 times as much wage growth as America’s working and middle class since 1979, new wage data reveals.

Between 1979 and 2017, the wages of the bottom 90 percent — the country’s working and lower middle class — have grown by only about 22 percent, Economic Policy Institute (EPI) researchers find.
Compare that small wage increase over nearly four decades to the booming wage growth of America’s top one percent, who have seen their wages grow more than 155 percent during the same period.
The top 0.01 percent — the country’s billionaire class — saw their wages grow by more than 343 percent in the last four decades, more than 15 times the wage growth of the bottom 90 percent of Americans.
In 1979, America’s working class was earning on average about $29,600 a year. Fast forward to 2017, and the same bottom 90 percent of Americans are earning only about $6,600 more annually.
The almost four decades of wage stagnation among the country’s working and middle class comes as the national immigration policy has allowed for the admission of more than 1.5 million mostly low-skilled immigrants every year.

(Public Citizen)
In the last decade, alone, the U.S. admitted ten million legal immigrants, forcing American workers to compete against a growing population of low-wage workers. Meanwhile, employers are able to reduce wages and drive up their profit margins thanks to the annual low-skilled immigration scheme.
The Washington, DC-imposed mass immigration policy is a boon to corporate executives, Wall Street, big business, and multinational conglomerates as every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of an occupation’s labor force reduces Americans’ hourly wages by 0.4 percent. Every one percent increase in the immigrant workforce reduces Americans’ overall wages by 0.8 percent.
Mass immigration has come at the expense of America’s working and middle class, which has suffered from poor job growth, stagnant wages, and increased public costs to offset the importation of millions of low-skilled foreign nationals.
Four million young Americans enter the workforce every year, but their job opportunities are further diminished as the U.S. imports roughly two new foreign workers for every four American workers who enter the workforce. Even though researchers say 30 percent of the workforce could lose their jobs due to automation by 2030, the U.S. has not stopped importing more than a million foreign nationals every year.
For blue-collar American workers, mass immigration has not only kept wages down but in many cases decreased wages, as Breitbart News reported. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues importing more foreign nationals with whom working-class Americans are forced to compete. In 2016, the U.S. brought in about 1.8 million mostly low-skilled immigrants.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

WILL WE EVER GET THE TRUTH ON OBAMA-HOLDERS’S ARMING OF THE MEX DRUG CARTELS???

ICYMI: Feds Want to Keep Any Mention of 'Fast And Furious' Out of El Chapo's Drug Trafficking Trial

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2018/12/23/icymi-feds-want-to-keep-any-mention-of-fast-and-furious-out-of-el-chapos-drug-n2537990

 

One of the most disgusting things to come out of the Obama administration was "Operation Fast and Furious," where members of the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed illegal gun sales to go through – commonly referred to as "gun walking" – in order to track buyers and sellers they believed were connected to the Mexican drug cartels. Nearly 2,000 firearms were sold and were eventually found throughout the United States and Mexico. Two of them were used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. 
According to the New York Daily NewsBrooklyn prosecutors are doing everything in their power to keep any questions relating to "Fast and Furious" from being mentioned during witness testimony. In fact, they're asking a federal judge to block defense attorneys from asking questions relating to the highly-publicized botched campaign.
"The defense strategy is transparent. Given the substantial number of articles that have been written about the Operation, many of which criticize the government’s handling of the movement of weapons from the United States into Mexico, the defense is attempting to use the well-known operation to place the government on trial," United States Attorney Richard Donoghue said in a letter to the court. "While the government wil lseek to introduce at trial seized weapons that had been identified by ATF agents within the scope of the Operation, any details about the Operation itself are completely irrelevant to the issues at trial under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and should be excluded on those grounds alone."
Judge Brian Cogan has yet to rule on the request.
According to witness testimony from former trafficker Tirso Martinez Sanchez, he ran El Chapo's train operation from 2000 to 2003 and made roughly $20 million. During that time, trains would pull into special warehouses in Mexico. Workers would fill hidden compartments with kilos of cocaine and then add oil to the train to throw off bomb-sniffing dogs at the border. This technique also discouraged border patrol agents from conducting physical searches.
Sanchez estimated that between 30 and 50 tons of cocaine, with a value of upwards of $800 million, was smuggled into the United States. Between seven to eight shipments a day made their way on the train lines to New York City. 
The trains would drop off the smuggled drugs at a warehouse in New Jersey. Trucks would then come to transport the drugs to various distribution locations between Queens and Brooklyn.
Various kilo packages were hidden in secret compartments of cars and trucks. They were then distributed at different meetings at fast food locations.
"He testified about three seizures – one at a train warehouse in Queens and one involving two tons of cocaine seized at a Brooklyn warehouse in 2002 – and said the heat they generated made him reconsider his career choice," the Daily News reported. "He was arrested in Mexico in early 2014 and extradited to the U.S. a year later. He pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and distribution and is facing 10 years to life."

Feds Spent More in 1 Month on Food Stamps Than Trump Wants for Year on Wall












By Terence P. Jeffrey | December 21, 2018 | 2:54 PM EST


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. (Getty Images/Bill Pugliano)
(CNSNews.com) - The federal government spent more money on the food stamp program in October, which was the first month of fiscal 2019, than President Donald Trump now wants the Congress to approve for the border wall for the entirety of fiscal 2019.
In October, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement, the federal government spent $5,892,000,000 on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is also known as the food stamp program.
In November, according to the statement for that month, the federal government spent another $5,428,000,000 on the food stamp program, bringing the total so far for fiscal 2019 (after only two months) to $11,320,000,000—or an average of $5,660,000,000 per month.
In fiscal 2018, which ran through September, the federal government spent $68,493,000,000 on the food stamp program.
By contrast, the continuing resolution passed yesterday by the House of Representatives, which includes the money Trump wants for the wall, provides $5,710,357,000 for that purpose.
That is $181,643,000 less than the federal government spent on the food stamp program in the month of October alone and about one twelfth (or 8.3 percent) of the amount the government spent on the food stamp program for all of fiscal 2018.
The $5,710,357,000 that the continuing resolution passed by the House provides for the border wall is for fiscal 2019 but stipulates that it is “to remain available until September 30, 2019.”
On the Senate floor on Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) said that $5 billion for the wall is “exorbitant.
“[T]he president held out for $5 billion for his wall, at the exorbitant cost of $31 million per mile, straight from the American taxpayer’s pocket,” said Schumer.



THE PHONY 'CRISES' OF PROGRESSIVES


Manufacturing a crisis to expand power.




Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
In November 2008, President-elect Obama’s chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel signaled the new administration’s progressive sensibility when he said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” For an ideology impatient with the rules of political change and democratic persuasion, the urgency of alleged crises creates powerful opportunities for politicians to suspend those rules and bypass the process of deliberation in which citizens exercise their autonomy and sovereignty.
Emanuel’s progressive intent becomes clearer if we see its relationship to progressive psychologist William James’ famous metaphor, “the moral equivalent of war.” There are serious social-political battles to fight, the implication goes, and it’s the moral duty of everyone to fight for the right side. In the case of progressives, the right side is the “arc of history” progressively bending toward greater “social justice” and equality, but impeded by the superstitious, the greedy, the unenlightened, and the evil.
Delve deeper into James’ metaphor and you see its sinister dimensions. Heraclitus said, “War is the father and king of all: some he has made gods, and some men; some slaves and some free.” War is the original creative destruction, in which fortune can turn in mere minutes. As such war often demands that the machinery of consensual government be compromised.  The demands of war––the need for rapid mobilization, provision of matériel, and decisions and actions whose success relies on decisiveness and speed–– has led even constitutional states to provide for an office or executive that can be temporarily allowed expanded power.
The powers of the ancient Roman office of dictator, or the extra-constitutional scope given to our commanders-in-chief during wartime, speaks to the unique circumstances that war creates. But the example of Julius Caesar illustrates as well the dangers of giving one man too much power. Appointed dictator for a year, Caesar had his term eventually extended to life.  During his tenure Caesar encroached on and abused the constitutional powers of other Republican institutions. And at the time of his assassination, he was rumored to be planning on becoming a king.
The American Founders were obsessed with excessive power creating a tyrant. Caesar was their model of what to avoid, and his assassins like Cato and Brutus, the models to emulate. They designated the president the “commander-in-chief” in recognition of the necessity of concentrating power in times of conflict. But they gave the power of declaring war to the Senate. And fearing a successful, charismatic general like Caesar, who commanded the military means to achieve his ambitions, they subordinated military power to civilian authority.
The Founders limited presidential power for good reasons. History and their own experience with George III had taught them that “power is of an encroaching nature,” and that no man no matter now virtuous or noble, is beyond corruption by power. That’s what made Washington’s resignation of his commission after the Revolutionary War, and his refusal to run for a third presidential term, so remarkable and unprecedented. As George III himself said when told Washington would resign his commission, “If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world!” 
Now we can see a major reason why progressives want to dismantle the Constitutional order: its limits on power hinder them from fulfilling their utopian schemes. Before he became president, Woodrow Wilson decried the institutionalized balance and separation of powers for the impediments it put on a visionary “leader of men” who could more efficiently discern what’s best for the citizenry and how to achieve it. Sounding suspiciously like the “messianic great leader” of many an autocracy, Wilson extolled a leader who possessed:
Such sympathetic and penetrating insight as shall enable him to discern quite unerringly the motive which move them in the mass . . .  it only needs what it is that lies waiting to be stirred in the minds and purposes of groups and masses of men. Besides, it is not sympathy that serves but a sympathy whose power is to command, to command by knowing its instrument . . . The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters . . . [except] for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the line of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question of the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them?
Such a leader should not be hindered by limits on his power, especially the division of the legislative from the executive branch of government. The president, as Wilson complained, should not be just “empowered to veto bad laws,” but “given the opportunity to make good ones.”
That Wilsonian ambition to “move men” to do what he wanted, and to “make good laws” was realized during Obama’s presidency, during which he used his “phone and pen” to circumvent Congress, issuing executive orders, signing letters, and other executive agency intrusions into the Article 1 law-making powers given to Congress.
And don’t forget his White House bureaucrat Cass Sunstein’s concept of the “nudge,” a kinder, gentler way of making voters do what you want through rewards and hidden persuasion­­–– the 21st century “soft despotism” answer to Wilson’s questions about how to “move people in the mass.” Of course, this implies what Wilson at least was honest about: that the “leader” knows what’s best for everybody else, and sees the machinery of representative government as being too slow or inefficient to achieve progressive ambitions for “improving” society or furthering “social justice.”
The “moral equivalent of war” metaphor also suggests other arguments for bypassing the Constitutional order. Like war, crises demand speedy action that democratic assemblies, deliberation, legislative procedures, and mechanisms of institutional accountability make difficult. And if crises aren’t available? As James’ metaphor implies, they can be created by one faction’s self-interested interpretation or exaggerations of the risks and dangers of inaction. When lives are at stake, the “urgency of now,” as Obama was fond of quoting Martin Luther King, makes adhering to the niceties of constitutional procedure dangerous as well as inefficient.
It’s not surprising, then, that for a century, progressives have exploited real crises, such as the Depression and two world wars, to increase the number and scope of intrusive executive branch powers. Several of the federal offices that Wilson created to manage World War I, for example, were refurbished for FDR’s New Deal, the greatest expansion of federal power up to then. But faux crises have been manufactured to achieve the same end.
No example is more revealing of this link between “crisis” and the expansion of federal and state power into business and private life than “climate change,” the meaningless euphemism for what used to be called “global warming,” itself shorthand for “catastrophic man-caused global warming.” The Fourth National Climate Assessment released last month is typical of the near half-century of hysterical predictions of civilization-ending catastrophe that conveniently will occur after this generation has passed on. And even as the free market has developed new technologies like fracking that have reduced carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S.--in 2017, 0.5% compared to the green EU’s rise of 1.5%--the climate-catastrophe industrial complex continues to call for more subsidies for “green” energy, and more Draconian reductions in carbon-based energy. Why would they do that? Because solving the climate “crisis” requires an expansion of government’s size, scope, and power to intrude into our lives, ability to appropriate our money, and create further limits on our autonomy.
Finally, just as during war we have seen Constitutional rights temporarily suspended, as Lincoln did habeas corpusduring the Civil War, or as Wilson did free speech rights during World War I, so too the progressives have been eager to limit our rights in order to keep such “obsolete and indefensible notions,” as progressive historian Charles Beard over a century ago described natural rights, from interfering with the progressives’ implementation of their utopian ambitions. So today we see calls to limit the First Amendment’s rights protecting speech and religion, or the Second’s right to keep and bear arms.
Our Constitutional mechanisms by design are cumbersome because the Founders’ primary aim was to defend political freedom, both of individuals and the states, from a centralized and concentrated power that inevitably seeks to expand at the expense of freedom. That’s why the progressives want to dismantle the Constitution’s checks and balances that limit power, and in the name of efficiency, justice, and equality, empower and expand technocratic elites who supposedly know better than individuals, families, communities, and the market what’s best.
We need to beware the hysterical cries that “something must be done!” about the “crisis” du jour. For when the crisis passes, more of our freedom will have gone with it.


Obama's 'Hispanicazation' of America



By  Monday, 10 January 2011 08:28 AM

Siting a shadow on economic recovery efforts in the United States is the cost of illegal immigration that consumes U.S. taxpayer dollars for education, healthcare, social welfare benefits, and criminal justice. Illegal aliens (or more politically correct, “undocumented immigrants”) with ties to Mexican drug cartels are contributing to death and destruction on U.S. lands along the southern border. 

While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”

Increasingly vicious foot soldiers of the Mexican drug cartels are taking control of U.S. lands along the border, especially since U.S. Border Patrol units have been reassigned, some to offices 60 to 80 miles inland.

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) early last year posted signs warning citizens to avoid Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, Ariz., because of criminal activity in the area, an area that includes protected natural areas precious to the nation. 

In reaction to public outrage over the signs, the BLM removed the offensive wording in October 2010, replacing it with the following: Visitor Information Update—Active Federal Law Enforcement Patrol Area. 

As the liberal news media, far-left Democrats, and labor unions push for the “Hispanicazation” of U.S. culture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the U.S. border has never been more secure. 

Perhaps she is basing this on the reduced number of apprehensions, which result, of course, from reassigning Border Patrol agents inland.

In a recent New York Times article, Nicholas Kristof criticized U.S. citizens for not speaking a foreign language and suggested that “Every child in the United States should learn Spanish.” He concluded that as the United States increasingly integrates economically with Latin America, Spanish will be crucial for the United States.

For decades, the liberal left has argued that Latin America is essential for U.S. business and trade. Kristof states that Latin America “is finally getting its act together” but fails to mention the Obama administration’s $2 billion loan of U.S. taxpayer money in 2009 to Brazil’s Petrobras oil company for deep off-shore oil drilling. Obama confidant George Soros, through the Soros Fund Management LLC, until recently owned millions of dollars of Petrobras stock.

Kristof suggests that one day Spanish-speaking Americans will be part of daily life in the United States and that workmen such as mechanics will be able to communicate easily with Spanish-speaking customers. 

He fails to explain why these customers will not be speaking English. After all, the ability to speak, read, and write English remains a requirement for U.S. citizenship.

President Barack Obama gives lip service to increasing border control resources with limited funding and personnel. Many officials, including the governors of Texas and Arizona, are skeptical regarding the Obama administration’s resolve. They resent that the United States is being blamed for the killing fields on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. Border.

For instance, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March 2009, during her first official visit to Mexico, placed the blame for the Mexican drug cartels’ vicious murders on the United States. 

In Mexico City, she announced that the U.S. appetite for illegal drugs and the easy acquisition of guns from the United States by Mexicans are the root causes of the Mexican crime wave. “Blame America” has become the global agenda of the Democratic Party. 

The Obama administration’s plan to resolve the immigration chaos is to offer amnesty to all comers. President Obama re-affirms his support of a “pathway to citizenship” (amnesty) for illegal aliens in 2011. 

The administration, however, has announced no plans to control the influx of future waves of illegal aliens or their skyrocketing costs to the nation. The administration, which condones U.S. sanctuary cities and states, has no plans to file charges against them for violations of federal immigration law. Nor does the administration seem concerned about the environmental impact that illegal aliens have on the ecology of the United States. 

Many national forests, parks, monuments, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges — once the pride of the nation — are serving today as marijuana fields for illegal alien gangs. 

Former Democratic Speaker of the House 

Nancy Pelosi reportedly said to a 

gathering of illegal aliens in California in 

2009 that U.S. immigration laws were 

“un-American,” suggesting that they need 

not be obeyed. Concerned citizens can only trust that the new speaker of the House, John Boehner, as part of congressional oversight of federal agencies, will demand enforcement of existing immigration laws.

When will President Obama recognize that illegal immigration is slowing economic recovery? Can he resolve the chaos while still appeasing his Hispanic base? 

To maintain his populist aura, the president is in the habit of saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another. 

One Obama apologist explained, “Campaign rhetoric is one thing,” suggesting that governing is another. The deliberate Hispanicazation of the United States to secure a block of votes is quite another.

No comments: