THE DOCTRINE OF THE N.A.F.T.A. GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS IS TO SERVE THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS WITH ENDLESS WAVES OF INVADING 'CHEAP' LABOR SUBSIDIZED WITH WELFARE FUNDED BY TAXES ON MIDDLE AMERICA.
In many speeches, Mayorkas says he is building a mass migration system to deliver workers to wealthy employers and investors and “equity” to poor foreigners. The nation’s border laws are subordinate to elites’ opinion about “the values of our country,” Mayorkas claims.
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
TWO DICTATORS WHO SHOULD BE EUTHANIZED - Turkey’s Erdogan Tells Putin: Israel Needs a ‘Strong and Deterrent Lesson’
The New Terror Campaign Against Israel Coincidences With Biden's New Pro-Terror Policies
The Islamic terror campaigns against Israel follow clear and reliable patterns.
1. They usually happen in the spring/summer period.
2. They usually follow some 'inciting incident' meant to lure Israel into an exchange of fire.
3. They take place during some effort by a US administration or the EU to appease the terrorists.
It's no coincidence that this latest assault by Hamas and Fatah follows a series of pro-terrorist measures by the Biden administration, including the restoration of funding to the terrorists, and a series of covert concessions to Iran.
Or that Iran is responding to those concessions with increased confrontations, including escalations against US naval vessels, and now the rocket attacks on Israel. This is a region where any weakness is exploited through a series of tests to see just how much 'give' there is. The usual useful idiots are only happy to reboot the same old anti-Israel rhetoric, clamoring about apartheid and holding up atrocity photos. And the Biden admin is equally happy to play the game of positioning itself halfway between AOC and the remaining (at least on paper) pro-Israel Democrats, which is to say being anti-Israel while wearing the facade of being pro-Israel by defining the new center as being between the extreme and the mainstream.
That means demanding that Israel stop bombing Hamas, start making concessions, and stop following the land of its own land.
That's exactly the outcome that Hamas and Fatah, and Iran, expected, and you can bet that they'll get it too if the history of the Obama administration is any guide.
Turkey’s Erdogan Tells Putin: Israel Needs a ‘Strong and Deterrent Lesson’
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday told Russian President Vladimir Putin the international community should “give Israel a strong and deterrent lesson” as punishment for responding so strongly to deadly Palestinian terror rocket attacks.
AP reports the Turkish Presidential Communications Directorate said the two leaders talked by phone about the escalating conflict with Erdogan calling for an international strike back against Israel.
The statement said Erdogan stressed the need for “the international community to give Israel a strong and deterrent lesson” and pressed for the United Nations Security Council to rapidly intervene with “determined and clear messages” to Israel.
The statement said Erdogan suggested to Putin that an international protection force to “shield the Palestinians” should be considered even as Israel itself was being battered by Hamas rocket fire.
Meanwhile, thousands of people in Istanbul defied a nationwide coronavirus curfew late Tuesday to demonstrate against Israel’s response to the random rocket attacks.
A large convoy of cars drove toward the Israeli Consulate, waving Turkish and Palestinian flags. An image of the Palestinian and Turkish flags was projected onto the Israeli building.
Pakistan has also condemned Israel’s actions and called for Muslim nations to stand by the Palestinians, with Prime Minister Imran Khan takinf to Twitter, saying: “We stand with Gaza and Palestine.”
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi meanwhile urged Muslim nations to unite over Israel’s strikes on Palestinian civilian areas.
Protesters are expected to hold a small anti-Israel rally later today in the southern city of Karachi.
'
The Dark Face of Palestinian Terror
A death cult reignites its terror against Israeli civilians.
The "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is spinning out of control toward another possible all-out war. Blame should, of course, fall on the Palestinian terrorists operating from Gaza, who have once again fired hundreds of rockets inside Israel against civilian targets. This time, the terrorists deliberately escalated what began as a local fracas over the possible eviction of Palestinians from homes they have been occupying in an area of East Jerusalem known as Sheikh Jarrah. Israeli Jews claim that this land belongs to them. After a barrage of rocket attacks, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) struck back. The Palestinians are complaining. Here we go again.
The pattern is very familiar by now. Palestinians use a pretext to start a riot. The Israeli police and security forces respond proportionately. The Palestinians up the ante, prompting a further Israeli response. Then Palestinian terrorists in Gaza use the territory they control to launch rocket attacks into Israel against civilian targets. Israel warns the terrorists to stop the rocket fire, which the terrorists ignore. After the Israeli military retaliates proportionately in an effort to target the terrorists responsible for the rocket attacks and their facilities, Palestinian government leaders cry foul. They point to unintended Palestinian civilian casualties, which are often caused by the Palestinian terrorists putting the civilians, including women and children, in harm’s way. Then, with their usual crocodile tears, Palestinian diplomats run to the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and other globalist forums to reprise their false narrative of victimhood at the hands of the “oppressor,” “murderous,” “apartheid” Israeli regime. The Palestinians can count on leftist support for their cause in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere.
In short, Palestinian militants provoke violence to which Israel responds. Palestinian terrorists target innocent civilians deliberately. Israel targets the terrorists and their facilities, with policies and practices in place to minimize civilian casualties. And like the youth who kills his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he’s an orphan, the Palestinians ask the so-called “international community” to rally around them.
The Israeli Supreme Court had not even ruled yet on the Sheikh Jarrah dispute before Palestinian agitators exploited the situation. They used the dispute, together with a peaceful Jerusalem Day parade celebrating Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem following Israel’s victory in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, as an excuse to riot. Israeli police responded, leading to an outbreak of violence in and around the Temple Mount.
Then Hamas and Islamic Jihad entered the fray by firing hundreds of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel and several rockets into the Jerusalem area. Abu Ubaida, a spokesman for Hamas’s armed wing, said it had launched “a rocket strike against the enemy in the occupied Jerusalem in response to their crimes and aggression against the holy city and its aggression against our people in Sheikh Jarrah and Al-Aqsa mosque.” This was the first time since the 2014 Gaza War that Hamas has aimed its rockets at Jerusalem.
While Israel’s Iron Dome defense system managed to intercept some of the rockets, others got through and killed at least two Israeli civilians, injured scores of other Israelis, and destroyed homes.
On Tuesday evening, as reported by the Jerusalem Post, Palestinian terrorists launched rockets reaching the Tel Aviv region. One of the rockets hit a bus, causing several injuries, including to a 5-year-old girl.
"The terrorist organizations in Gaza have crossed a red line," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. "Whoever attacks us will pay a heavy price," he added, warning that the fighting could "continue for some time." As usual, the Palestinian terrorists did not listen.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) made good on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s threat. The IDF responded to the Palestinian terrorist attacks by striking Palestinian terrorists and their facilities in the Gaza Strip. Israel’s airstrikes were deadly to be sure but aimed squarely at killing the terrorists, such as the head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s special rocket unit, Samah Abed al-Mamluk, and other senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives. The IDF also targeted Hamas military installations, a Hamas tunnel, and rocket launchers.
Israeli forces try to provide warnings where possible to give Palestinian non-combatants, if any, the opportunity to leave before a building believed to be used by terrorists is destroyed. Any Palestinian civilian casualties are the collateral consequences of the decision by Palestinian terrorists to operate or hide among the civilian population. Also, some of the Palestinian civilian deaths reported by the Gaza health ministry could well have been caused by rockets the terrorists launched that landed in Gaza.
The dispute in Sheikh Jarrah, which helped ignite the current conflagration, involves land that two Jewish trusts bought from Arab landowners in 1876. After Jordan captured the area and illegally occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the Jordanians seized the Jewish-owned lands to build homes for Palestinians. Following Israel’s capture of East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967, Israel returned ownership of the Sheikh Jarrah homes to the Jewish trusts, which later sold them to Jewish settlers who are trying to evict the Palestinians now living there. The Palestinian residents who signed an agreement in 1982 accepting Jewish ownership of the land in return for which they were allowed to live in the homes there as protected tenants may have had a decent case to remain, except for one thing. They repudiated the agreement, thereby forfeiting their protected status. This protected status does not suddenly return if other Palestinians move in as squatters. In any event, the issue is up to Israel’s Supreme Court to resolve.
Leftwing Democrats have added their own fuel to the fire by reflexively taking the Palestinians’ side rather than waiting for the judicial process to take its course. Democratic-Socialist Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, for example, wrote last week that “We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. Israeli forces are forcing families from their homes during Ramadan and inflicting violence. It is inhumane and the US must show leadership in safeguarding the human rights of Palestinians.” (Emphasis added)
The ”we” includes Senator Elizabeth Warren. The progressive senator said that “the forced removal of long-time Palestinian residents in Sheikh Jarrah is abhorrent and unacceptable. The Administration should make clear to the Israeli government that these evictions are illegal and must stop immediately.” The Israeli government should make clear to Senator Warren that she lacks any understanding of the background of the dispute and should mind her own business.
The Biden administration has reportedly expressed its displeasure to Israeli authorities over the possible Sheikh Jarrah evictions, as well as Israel’s construction plans in other parts of East Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is said to have dismissed the objections. His position is that “Jerusalem is not a settlement, but the capital of Israel.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu no doubt wishes that Donald Trump was still in the White House. President Biden’s attempt to go back to the so-called even-handedness approach of the Obama-Biden administration and to put some distance between the United States and its closest ally in the Middle East has enabled much of what is now happening. Biden's recent decision to restore millions of dollars of funding to the Palestinians has also encouraged the Palestinians to become more aggressive against Israel without fearing a Trump-style response.
The Biden State Department has at least condemned the Palestinian terrorist rocket attacks as “an unacceptable escalation.” The State Department spokesman, Ned Price, called on “all sides” to show restraint, but acknowledged “Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.”
That’s helpful, but it's just words. What will the Biden administration do if another one-sided, anti-Israel resolution pushed by the Palestinians and their friends comes before the UN Security Council? The Security Council has already met behind closed doors to discuss the current crisis.
Will the Biden administration abstain like the Obama-Biden administration did in 2016, allowing the infamous Security Council Resolution 2334 to pass? Probably it will, under pressure to go along with the globalist "consensus." Resolution 2334 declared that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law…” The Biden administration would have no problem allowing another resolution to pass that reaffirms Resolution 2334's proclamation and declares that any Israeli evictions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem are also illegal under international law.
As usual, the current crisis should not be considered in a vacuum. Palestinian leaders are hoping that the escalation of violence in Israel and Gaza puts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back on the front pages. They are hoping that Israel’s forceful response to the terrorists’ rocket attacks will create a major split between Israel and the Arab countries seeking better relations with the Jewish state.
This strategy may be succeeding. The back-and-forth of terrorist rocket attacks and Israeli retaliatory airstrikes is dominating the news. An Arab League meeting of foreign ministers was convened to discuss the situation, resulting in a statement that placed the blame for the violence solely on Israel.
Reuters has reported that at the conclusion of the Arab League meeting, the foreign ministers issued a statement holding Israel "fully responsible for whatever follows due to its crimes, which constitute glaring violations of U.N. decrees, international law and human rights law." The statement called on international organizations including the UN Security Council to "immediately stop the Israeli aggression and provide the necessary protection for the Palestinian people and uphold their right to worship freely and safely."
The Palestinian terrorists’ current escalation also reflects in part the ongoing power struggle within Palestinian leadership ranks. Hamas wants to show Palestinians that it is best equipped to look after their interests after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas decided to postpone indefinitely the first Palestinian elections in 15 years, scheduled for May 22nd. Abbas reportedly feared that Hamas would not only hold onto its power in Gaza but would also fare better than the Fatah Party factions still supporting him would in the West Bank. Hamas called the election postponement a “coup.” It is trying to force Abbas’s hand by showing him up as an ineffectual, out-of-touch bureaucrat.
Hamas may also be trying to destabilize Israel politically as Israel tries to put together a working governing coalition. However, the terrorists’ attacks are more likely to have the opposite effect.
If the past is prologue, some combination of Egypt, Qatar and UN officials will try to mediate a ceasefire in return for which Israel will have to make one or more concessions. The Palestinians may get to stay put in homes on land they do not own without the owners’ consent after all.
The degree to which Muslim terrorists can feign remorse for their crimes and convincingly pretend to have reformed — while secretly despising and plotting to murder non-Muslims — was recently underscored.
After his prison evaluators had determined that Usman Khan, who was serving time for terrorist-related activities, had reformed and repented of his ways, they freed him early, in December 2018. Less than a year later he murdered two people, a man and woman, and injured three others at Fishmongers Hall near London Bridge.
During a recent inquest, the Rev. Paul Foster, a prison chaplain, admitted that he was one of those to have been "conned" by the falsely "remorseful" Khan.
Foster said that "Khan had engaged positively with programmes looking at his offending and the impact of his crimes." Khan, moreover, "had conversations with me about wanting to change and make a fresh start — to pay more attention to the ripple effect of his actions."
Mr Foster also said Khan had spoken "openly and emotionally" during a discussion session with a victim of crime.
He added: "We were being presented with a lot of positive things about his behavior — even some of the prisoners were telling me... in one instance a chap lost his son to a murder and Usman was the person at his door offering his condolences and asking if he could help."
The chaplain described one session with Khan in which he professed "some shame" about the impact his crime had on the Muslim community.
"He appeared to show remorse for what he had done," Mr Foster said.
In the end, it was all a charade. During the inquest, Foster expressed shock on learning that, during the same time period that Khan was feigning repentance, so too was he the "main inmate for radicalising others and had been involved in 'forced conversations.'"
"[H]e was obviously presenting himself in a way that was likely to deceive the likes of myself and others," Foster concluded. "I'm open to say I am wrong, and it is possible I have been conned."
Indeed, not only was he conned by Khan, but many other well-meaning prison employees and evaluators have been conned by many other "reformed" Muslim terrorists. Worse, such cons appear to be the rule, not the exception.
According to a 2020 study published by Kings College London's International Centre for the Study of Radicalization (ICSR) and titled "Prisons and Terrorism," "'[f]alse compliance' seems to have become more widespread, especially among jihadist prisoners, though its true extent is unknown. This can be a major issue in relation to risk assessment and release arrangements."
The ICSR report documented several other examples beyond Khan of jihadi prisoners pretending to have reformed and "de-radicalized." One of the two Muslims who beheaded 85‑year‑old Catholic priest Jacques Hamel in his church in France in 2016 had twice earlier been apprehended for trying to go to Syria and fight for the Islamic State. All he had to do, however, was tell the judge what he wanted to hear: "I am a Muslim who believes in mercy, in doing good. I'm not an extremist. ... I want to get back my life, see my friends, get married." Based on these words, the judge released him, and soon thereafter, this "Muslim who believes in mercy" slaughtered the elderly priest.
Similarly, "many of the 40 female inmates in Fleury‑Mérogis prison in Paris have joked about how they tricked the judge or magistrate — by eating pork, for example, which is forbidden in Islam — to receive more lenient sentences."
Sadly, the only ones learning from the interaction between Muslim prisoners and European authorities are the terrorists themselves:
From their perspective, prison is also an opportunity to understand how the authorities operate, and — in a sign of their growing awareness of counterintelligence and countersurveillance — jihadists have actively looked to pass their time in prison without incident or arousing the suspicions of the authorities.
Relatedly, the incarcerated terrorists "see prison as a test of their commitment to the cause and a place to recover from Islamic State's battlefield losses and the wider upheaval in the jihadist scene."
The ICSR report goes on to invoke the word taqiyya — Islam's premiere doctrine of deceit:
[O]ffenders may try to 'game' a risk assessment if they are in contact with other inmates who have already participated in the process. Part of this involves knowing what to say to tick the right boxes. Much of this is seemingly the use of what is referred to as taqiyya, which is a (mostly) Shiite concept used to describe deception and dissimulation to hide one's true intentions. ... [T]he true scale of taqiyya may be greater than commonly understood. ... Yet the assumption that jihadists are more willing to engage in deception than non‑terrorist prisoners can pose a conundrum, whereby anything less than admitting to holding jihadist ideas and intentions is thought of as a form of taqiyya.
It is, admittedly, somewhat surprising — refreshingly so — to see a normally politically correct Western think-tank even use the term taqiyya. For example, after "Islam's Doctrines of Deception" — an article that Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst (a defense intelligence agency) had commissioned me to write on taqiyya — was published in September 26, 2008, its (since fired) editor called me in a panic: his superiors were outraged that he had allowed such an article to appear. Part of their "damage control" was to publish another article refuting mine.
The great "crime" of my article was that it went against academic orthodoxy on taqiyya, which has long insisted that the doctrine permits Muslims to deceive others only when their lives are under threat. My article argued what the ICSR report is now saying — well over a decade later: that the application of taqiyya, or deceit, is hardly limited to life-threatening situations and is often employed in any way that can be seen as helping Muslims against non-Muslims.
As for the typical (and wrong) caveat offered by the ICSR, that "taqiyya ... is a (mostly) Shiite concept," this is not true — as evidenced by the simple fact that the prison subjects in ICSR's own study are overwhelmingly if not entirely Sunni. As Dr. Sami Nassib Makarem, the foremost authority on taqiyya, wrote in his seminal book, Al-Taqiyya fi'l Islam ("Taqiyya in Islam"):
Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. ... We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. ... Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.
Taqiyya was associated with Shiites because, historically, they had more reason to employ it, being minorities surrounded by hostile Sunni majorities. Today, however, Sunnis in the West are the primary Muslim minorities surrounded by their historic enemies — non-Muslims, "infidels" — and thus they, no less than Shia, employ taqiyya. (For those interested in more detailed expositions on Islam's doctrines of deceit, see here, here, and here.)
So long as the West fails to appreciate the significance and widespread nature of taqiyya, so long will it continue to be duped by its practitioners — often, as highlighted by Usman Khan's example, with fatal consequences.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Sword and Scimitar, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
In Fort Worth, Texas on Tuesday, a 32-year-old Muslim named Islam Said was sentenced to ten years in prison for spending the last thirteen years helping his father, Yaser Said, one of the FBI’s Most Wanted criminals, evade capture. Yaser Said was wanted for murdering his two daughters, Islam Said’s sisters, Amina and Sarah Said. What kind of man would know that his father had murdered his two sisters and then help his father avoid justice, rather than turning him in? The answer to that question is far too uncomfortable and inconvenient for law enforcement officials to face honestly.
Islam Said was arrested along with Yaser last August. Apparently he was in hiding with his father, although he doesn’t seem to have had anything to do with the killings. And according to the Dallas Morning News, Islam Said denies that the killings were honor murders or had anything to do with Islam. “It’s something else. Religion has nothing to do with it.”
Yet that raises the question of why Islam Said was with his father at all. If these weren’t honor killings, why would Islam Said go on the run with Yaser and help him hide for all these years? Why wouldn’t he have the normal human reaction of thinking that what his father had done in murdering his sisters was abhorrent, and turn his father in to authorities? Did Islam Said’s commitment to the religion of Islam override that natural human reaction and make him think that what his father had done was good and praiseworthy?
For despite media denial and obfuscation of the fact, honor killing is something that many Muslims believe to be good and in accord with their faith. According to Islamic law, “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (Reliance of the Traveller o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In this case the victim was the murderer’s daughter, a victim to the culture of violence and intimidation that such laws help create.
That is why Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.’” And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”
Also connected to the Islamic aspect of the story, and evidence that these were honor killings, is the fact that Yaser Said was enraged that Amina and Sarah had non-Muslim boyfriends. The Dallas Morning News reported at the time of the arrests last August that “Sarah said her father had threatened her older sister when he learned that she had a boyfriend, saying he’d put a bullet through Amina’s head.”
Thirteen years ago, however, the Dallas Morning News was more courageous and honest. Back in January 2008, it reported that the girls’ mother Patricia had said (regarding Amina) that “since they are Muslim that the daughter was only allowed to date other Muslims. Yaser had found out she went on a date with a non-Muslim and became very angry and threatened her with bodily harm.”
Yet now Patricia is now playing dumb: “She had no idea where Said was, and, despite public speculation about a motive, she doesn’t know why the sisters were killed.” We can only hope that police will not take her claim at face value, and thoroughly investigate whether Patricia had any role in Yaser being able to evade capture for twelve years. For note this: Patricia “divorced Said in 2009 and had converted to Islam after her daughters’ deaths, said in 2011 that she didn’t know why Said had killed Amina and Sarah but that he thought they were overly Westernized.”
This is a woman who admitted in 2008 — after her husband had killed their two daughters — that her husband had threatened to kill one of her daughters for dating a non-Muslim. Then, after that, she converted to Islam. What kind of a mindset could Patricia Owens Said possibly have had that would have induced her to join the religion that seems to have played a role in leading her husband to murder their daughters? Could it have been because she was in touch with Yaser and was signaling her acquiescence to and approval of his act? Will investigators look into this possibility, or would that be “Islamophobic”?
Probably the latter. Irving police Chief Jeff Spivey says “This man brutally murdered — shot to death — his two daughters in his taxi cab. What led him to do that, I think at this point to us, is irrelevant.”
No, sir. It isn’t irrelevant at all. It could shed important light on the behavior of Islam Said, and on the question of whether or not Patricia Owens Said were involved in his twelve years as a fugitive. Also, knowing exactly what happened in this case could help authorities prevent such honor killings in the future. Yet Chief Spivey seemed cheerfully willing to allow political correctness and fear of the leftist mob to curtail and deform his investigation. And so it is virtually certain that this isn’t the last such case we will see in the United States.
A Texas rancher living north of Eagle Pass discovered five unaccompanied migrant children abandoned by smugglers on their farmland Saturday night. The five small girls, ranging in ages from one to six years old, were led across the Rio Grande River and abandoned the evening before. The human smugglers left them with no food, water, or any adults to care for them throughout the night.
The rancher’s wife shot a video when they found the children on Mothers Day Sunday morning. The frustrated woman expressed their displeasure for the dangers the children faced throughout the night and the seriousness of their situation. Temperatures reached 103 degrees on Sunday and the children appeared to be exhausted and dehydrated.
A Texas rancher found five little girls abandoned on the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande on Mother’s Day. (Photo: Katie Coleman Hobbs)
The ranchers’ employee and his spouse helped care for and comfort the abandoned children while they awaited the arrival of Border Patrol agents. The frustration was easily heard as the rancher’s wife expressed her feelings in a Facebook post.
“Five little girls were crossed yesterday afternoon and were dumped with no food, water, nothing,” Kate Coleman Hobbs wrote. “My husband found them this morning while on rounds. The adults in the video are our farm manager and his wife who brought much-needed water and food.”
“This is happening everywhere!!!!” she continued. “Share, make calls, raise hell! Stop this inhumanity! This summer is going to be a killer for many! 110 degrees! Stop! Stop this!”
In another post, Hobbs said her husband thought one of the little girls was dead. Fortunately, they were able to revive the child and provide water.
This incident comes as the Biden Administration opens additional Health and Human Services (HHS) Intake Sites to accommodate a surge in unaccompanied migrant children being smuggled into the United States. The children’s parents are sending the children alone to avoid immediate expulsion under the CDC Title 42 emergency order if crossing as a family unit. According to a law enforcement source, the parents or other relatives illegally enter the United States afterward to claim the children to avoid deportation once the children are freed by HHS.
Randy Clark is a 32-year veteran of the United States Border Patrol. Prior to his retirement, he served as the Division Chief for Law Enforcement Operations, directing operations for nine Border Patrol Stations within the Del Rio, Texas, Sector. Follow him on Twitter @RandyClarkBBTX.
No comments:
Post a Comment