Friday, June 15, 2018

DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE LAWSUIT AGAINST WIKILEAKS and JULIAN ASSANGE TO PROTECT HILLARY CLINTON AND THE FACTS ABOUT HER PAY-TO-PLAY TREASON, PHONY CHARITY FOUNDATION SLUSH FUND and LOOTING OF THE PEOPLE of HAITI

The Democratic National Committee lawsuit against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: A major attack on press freedom
By Ed Hightower
15 June 2018
In late April, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed a civil lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Russian government, Russian intelligence agents, Donald Trump election campaign officials and WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.
The 66-page complaint claims that Trump’s presidential campaign collaborated with Russian intelligence agents who stole information from DNC email servers in the summer of 2016 and arranged for WikiLeaks to publish the information in order to undermine Democrat Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and secure the election of a US president more amenable to the Kremlin.
The lawsuit is largely based on circumstantial evidence and innuendos about Trump’s business ties with Russia. Salacious details about the 2013 Miss Universe pageant held in Moscow, Russian real estate deals and Florida mega-mansions sold to Russian oligarchs are offered to suggest that a criminal conspiracy must exist.
However, the complaint provides no new evidence. The lawsuit merely recycles the unsubstantiated allegations of “Russian meddling” contained in a January 2017 report from the office of the US director of national intelligence.
The lawsuit seeks money from the defendants as well as an injunction or court order prohibiting further release of information taken from DNC servers. Notably, it does not allege that the contents of the leaks are false or adulterated in any way.
Rather, it insists that the publication by WikiLeaks of “sensitive proprietary documents” is illegal even if WikiLeaks did not participate in the theft of the information, and even if it was not stolenat all. The Russian government, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange all deny hacking the DNC servers or conspiring with anyone who did so. Assange, moreover, has stated that the Russian government was not the source of the leaked emails.
The leaked emails from the DNC exposed a conspiracy on the part of Democratic Party officials to sabotage the presidential primary challenge of Bernie Sanders. The emails showed, among other things, that the DNC intended to have journalists ask Sanders if he was an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary, on the assumption that the question would damage Sanders and boost the campaign of Clinton. In the event, Sanders won the primary election in a rout.
The leaks also included dossiers the DNC kept on very wealthy campaign donors, with fawning lists of celebrity likes and dislikes, and what federal commissions and appointments might suit them.
Throughout the 2016 presidential election, powerful sections of the military/intelligence complex and the capitalist class supported Clinton and portrayed Trump as “soft” on Russia and insufficiently committed to the US war policy in the Middle East. Since Trump’s election, these forces, spearheaded by the Democratic Party and large sections of the corporate media, have placed enormous pressure on the administration to escalate the US offensive against Russia, up to and including working to destabilize the Trump White House.
Since Trump’s inauguration, the Democrats have sought to channel popular opposition to what is the most reactionary government in US history along right-wing, pro-war and anti-democratic lines. This includes a campaign to censor the Internet and silence anti-war and progressive viewpoints in the name of combating “fake news.”
The DNC’s legal attack on Assange and WikiLeaks is the specific form that this reactionary campaign takes in the arena of civil law.
The attempt to prosecute WikiLeaks, Assange and others who publish leaked information, but who had no part in obtaining that information, is a major attack on press freedom and the ability of journalists to bring to the public’s attention secrets, lies and crimes that the government or political or corporate officials want to conceal.
The general reaction of the corporate-controlled media to the DNC lawsuit has been to dismiss it as a legal curiosity or to ignore it altogether. However, a number of journalists and commentators have denounced the lawsuit as an attack on press freedom. The Committee to Protect Journalists published a May 29 statement with the headline “By suing WikiLeaks, DNC could endanger principles of press freedom.”
The article stated: “On its surface, the DNC’s argument seems to fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Bartnicki v. Vopper that publishers are not responsible for the illegal acts of their sources. It also goes against press freedom precedents going back to the Pentagon Papers and contains arguments that could make it more difficult for reporters to do their jobs or that foreign governments could use against US journalists working abroad…”
Bartnicki v. Vopper was a 2001 US Supreme Court case that considered a journalist’s freedom to disseminate information that was obtained illegally. The context was a radio talk show host who broadcast a recording of a phone call between union officials. The phone call was recorded by an illegal wiretap, and the talk show host, Frederick Vopper, knew about the tape’s unlawful origins when he played it on the air. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that Vopper’s conduct was protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
From a legal standpoint, the DNC complaint urges the trial court to undercut the main constitutional protection for journalists who publish leaked information, known as the New York Timesdefense, which holds that it is not illegal for a journalist to publish information that was obtained by illegal means as long as the journalist did not participate in those illegal means. The defense refers to the 1971 Pentagon Papers case (New York Times Co. v. US) which protected Times reporters who published internal White House documents on the Vietnam War.
The DNC lawsuit seeks to undermine the New York Times defense in three ways. First, it casts WikiLeaks as a co-conspirator with Russian officials and the Trump election campaign, saying it collaborated with Russian intelligence agents who illegally hacked DNC servers. As co-conspirators to the hacking, WikiLeaks and Assange would be unable to invoke the New York Times defense.
Second, the complaint borrows a doctrine from corporate and intellectual property law: trade secrets. According to this novel application of trade secrets law, the content of what was leaked enjoys protection from disclosure in the same way that a private corporation’s new invention or patented industrial process would. References to “sensitive proprietary documents” and “economic espionage,” which belong in the field of corporate litigation, abound in the DNC complaint.
This far-fetched and contorted legal gambit has far-reaching and dire implications for freedom of the press and free speech. By advancing a trade secrets/intellectual property argument, the Democratic Party is advocating for a huge expansion of censorship.
Under this new theory, a government or corporation would own not just documents, images, emails and so on. It would also own the information contained in them, i.e., the facts and details of its conduct as an idea, in the same way that a company or individual can own a trademark on its logo or a copyright on a screenplay. The DNC argues that its crimes and misdeeds are its intellectual property.
What is particularly anti-democratic about the trade secrets argument is that it makes no distinction as to whether leaked material was legally or illegally obtained, and whether the journalist participated in any illegality, which the New York Times Co. line of cases considers a key issue. The DNC’s trade secrets argument would allow the government or other entity to sue the publisher of leaked information even if a reporter had no role in obtaining the information, and even if the reporter accidentally obtained the information.
The practical effect would be to ban the reporting and publication of virtually any information the government or other powerful individuals or organizations wanted concealed from the public. The implications are totalitarian.
Third, the DNC complaint argues that WikiLeaks and the other defendants should be liable under several criminal statutes, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which was originally enacted to prosecute the Mafia. In other counts of the complaint, the defendants are accused of federal wire fraud and Virginia-based computer crimes. Aside from the crude attempt to suggest that the defendants are gangsters, the RICO and wire fraud arguments are noteworthy in another regard: there is no civil remedy in these criminal statutes, and so their invocation lacks any basis in legal precedent.
The DNC complaint offers a potted history of the 2016 presidential election and subsequent allegations that the Russian government interfered “with our democracy.” Specifically, the complaint states that in 2015 and 2016, “Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC’s computers, penetrated its phone systems, and exfiltrated tens of thousands of documents and emails… Russia then used this stolen information to advance its own interests: destabilizing the US political environment, denigrating the Democratic presidential nominee, and supporting the campaign of Donald J. Trump, whose policies would benefit the Kremlin.”
(In a curious admission, the complaint cites “foreign allies” gathering intelligence on the Trump campaign’s communications with Russia in 2015, and Australian assistance in particular. Are not Australia and these other allies likewise guilty of influencing a US election?)
While the DNC complaint could hardly be surpassed for its cynicism, the more pressing issue is the effort by the Democratic leadership to have a court of law criminalize the publication of leaks. Should the DNC prevail, journalists could face criminal prosecution and civil damages any time they reported on unlawful government or corporate activity. This is in keeping with the ruling class’ attitude toward WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden—that those who expose war crimes and other illegal government activity are the real criminals.
The Democratic Party’s attempt to criminalize the publication of leaks is not new. The Barack Obama administration aggressively prosecuted suspected leakers and the journalists who received the leaked information. This included the Department of Justice’s seizure of records for 21 phone lines registered to the Associated Press. The Obama Justice Department also alleged that Fox News journalist James Rosen committed a crime when he published documents leaked by a government weapons expert in 2010. The FBI tapped Rosen’s phone and his parents’ phone, confiscated his emails and followed his movements.
The DNC’s lawsuit should serve as a warning. Notwithstanding the specious character of its legal arguments and its fanciful allegations, the lawsuit is not some minor episode. Decisions of the magnitude of this lawsuit do not merely slip through the cracks of a major bourgeois political party. Rather, they express the orientation to authoritarian forms of rule no less than the attorneys for Donald Trump do when they argue that he could shoot former FBI director James Comey and then use the presidential pardon power to escape any legal consequences.
The author also recommends:

Hillary's Intent: What James Comey Missed

James Mr. Magoo Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Magoo, while acknowledging that Hillary had put the country’s secrets on her home server – i.e., without their protective coding – could find no “intent” in her doing so. It just happened. Let’s unpack that.
Bill and Hillary Adjusted Gross Income

2009
$10.0 million
2010
$13.1 million
2011
$14.7 million
2012
$19.7 million
2013
$27.1 million


Hillary’s total “intent”
as Secretary of State
$84.6 million

Source: NPR
While these numbers are not out of line with the Clintons’ AGI in the surrounding years, the question still arises…What was this money being paid for? It can’t all be for speeches by Bill on diarrhea in Africa (as characterized by the inimitable Mark Steyn).
Let’s put it this way…
  • Rockefeller sold oil
  • Ford sold cars
  • Gates sold software
  • What is Hillary selling? Well, as Secretary of State, breaking all precedent, protocol and the lessons of signals intelligence of the 20th century, she arranged for the top-secret communications of our country to be available to outside listeners at her discretion. The Federal Bureau of Magoo doesn’t see anything peculiar about it. Could happen to anybody. James Mr. Magoo Comey isn’t concerned, doubtless because he has “a higher loyalty,” although God knows what it is to. Certainly not the Constitution. Certainly not the destiny of United States of America. Probably it has to do with being a Clinton toady.
  • So, what is Hillary selling? Us!
Would it make you feel better if you were a soldier if you knew that your mission or your route march had been decided in light of who been able to reach the Secretary of State with the appropriate fee?
Too much of this, and our Armed Forces would become as ineffective as those of any Third World kleptocracy. The American Republic has always been able to avoid corruption of this type in the past. That is, before Hillary. (One of the things about the Clintons is that their crimes are so colossal that the person who brings them up is the one who looks crazy.)
Ask yourself this…
  • What was it worth to Iran in to know our policies in dealing with their nuclear program?

  • What was it worth to Russia to know how we will react to their taking over Crimea and invading Eastern Ukraine?

  • What was it worth to Germany to know how much we know about their selling high-value machinery to Iran?

  • What was it worth to China to know how we are planning to react to their expansion in the South China Sea?

  • What was it worth to Syria to know how serious we are at enforcing our red line?

  • What was it worth to Cuba to know whether we’re going to insist that they dismantle their gulag?

The NSA grew out of our wartime experience with signals intelligence, particularly the massive success of the British Ultra project. Since then, the NSA has sent countless mathematicians gibbering to sanatoriums – metaphorically speaking, of course.
Not metaphorically speaking, one of the strangest phenomena in physics is quantum entanglement: that entangled subatomic particles change their state apparently simultaneously apparently regardless of distance. I.e., they appear to communicate non-relativistically. The NSA has looked into this phenomenon for communications but it has borne no fruit so far (as far as we know).  This is the extent to which we go to protect our sensitive national communications. Not Hillary. She puts our national communications essentially on a toy. This not only puts them in condition to be purloined without fingerprints, but it also endangers our coding because it puts them in clear and thus provides a crib for those trying to break into our codes.
No to worry. The Federal Bureau of Magoo not only sees no intention on Hillary’s part to sell out the country – us – for her personal financial reward, they apparently see no danger to our national communications, although James Mr. Magoo Comey did not address this point in his exoneration of Hillary in July 2016.
"With a cloth?"
Must have slipped his mind. Because James Mr. Magoo Comey is an honorable man. In fact, all of them at the Federal Bureau of Magoo are all, all honorable men.
But what about intent? Oh, that. Well, in the words of a great American… “you betcha!

OBAMA: FUNDED BY HIS CRONY CRIMINAL BANKSTERS and ELECTED
BY MEXICO – THE FIRST BLACK MAN OR THE FIRST SPY ELECTED TO THE PRESIDENCY???

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/matthew-vadum-spies-like-obama.html

 

Now the outlines of a Watergate-like conspiracy are emerging in which a sitting Democrat president apparently used the apparatus of the state to spy on a Republican presidential candidate. Watergate differed in that President Nixon didn’t get involved in the plot against the Democratic National Committee until later as an accomplice after the fact. Here Obama likely masterminded or oversaw someone like the diabolical Benghazi cover-up artist Ben Rhodes, masterminding the whole thing.

 

"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan

Leaked Julian Assange Message: 

Hillary Is A ‘Well Connected, Sadistic Sociopath’

LOOKING LIKE 30 YEARS FOR HILLARY CLINTON …. OBAMA MAY FOLLOW HER!
MICHAEL BARONE
“The Lawlessness of the Obama Administration: A never-ending story.”
"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com

 CLINTON – OBAMA – TRUMPERNOMICS: STEAL FROM THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-

CLASS and HAND IT TO THE SUPER RICH ON A SILVER PLATTER!


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/clinton-obama-trumpernomics-rich-get.html


"The Wealth-X report shows that the world’s billionaire population has grown by 15 percent, to 2,754 people, since 2016, and that the wealth of these billionaires “surged by 24 percent to a record level of $9.2 trillion,” equivalent to 12 percent of the gross domestic product of the entire planet."


THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOYS & GIRLS IN CONGRESS GATHER ROUND TO UNLEASH THE WHOLESALE LOOTING OF THEIR BANKSTER PAYMASTERS EVEN MORE….BOTTOMLESS BAILOUTS AROUND THE CORNER WAITING!

After eight years of the Dodd-Frank bank “reform,” the American financial oligarchy exercises its dictatorship over society and the government more firmly than ever. This unaccountable elite will not tolerate even the most minimal limits on its ability to plunder the economy for its own personal gain.

This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”

MeToo: Democratic Party leader Eric Holder is looking for new Weinsteins to defend


https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/metoo_democratic_party_leader_eric_holder_is_looking_for_new_weinsteins_to_defend.html

Democratic Party stalwart Eric Holder, isn't letting the Democratic Party's claimed principles about standing up for women's rights get in his way of his quest for more money. He's actually conducting a roadshow to offer his legal services to Hollywood executives to help them head off legal or public relations crises in the event their predatory sexual behavior become public. You know, if one of the #MeToo women comes out and accuses the next one of being another Harvey Weinstein -- whether through groping, casting-couch favoritism, or maybe raping - he's there to help the company. Basically, Holder wants to ... defend these people from those dreaded women, and profit handsomely. Kid you not.
Here is what Variety reported, with some spin for Holder (emphasis mine):
Former attorney general Eric Holder pitched his investigative services to a roomful of Hollywood executives on Friday, urging them to get out in front of #MeToo allegations.
Holder, now a partner at Covington & Burling, gave a presentation to about 50 corporate leaders at the firm’s Los Angeles office. The former attorney general oversaw the firm’s extensive investigation of sexual harassment claims at Uber last year, which led to the ouster of the CEO, and is now seeking to expand the investigations practice in Hollywood.
It might seem like a tough sell: Hire us, and your CEO could get fired. But Holder and two other partners, Aaron Lewis and Lindsay Burke, are selling companies on the benefits ofanticipating problems before they become national news.
“The lesson of Uber is it’s vastly better to look at these issues proactively rather than reactively,” Lewis told Variety in an interview before the meeting.
Which is weird stuff for a guy who claims a very active leadership spot in the Democratic Party, no matter how they spin it as "investigative" work. The Democratic Party is trying to make political hay from the #MeToo movement, claiming it's all about President Trump. So picture it: Holder's actually going out to all those potential new Weinsteins in Hollywood and shilling up business in the name of protecting them from their own behavior.
You know, the way it's always gone in the past when Democrats protected sexual predators, such as Weinstein. There's always a Democrat around to defend them, as we witnessed in the case of Weinstein, at least until the issue gets too hot to handle.
It ought to be a wake up call to the #MeToo movement as to the real intentions of Democrats, given that the overwhelming majority of #MeToo's accused culprits were Hollywood leftists and staunch Democratic Party donors.
Did I say 'donors'? Oh wait, now the picture becomes clearer: Holder seems to want to protect Democratic Party donors from accusations that can ruin their careers - and dry up Democratic Party donations as such people are thrown out.
Like Weinstein was. Apparently, the loss of Weinstein as a Democratic donor must have been a tough blow for them.
But it sure reveals how hypocritical Democrats can be that they even allow this. They claim themselves to be the party of #MeToo and the great defender of women's interests. That's what the press reports in lockstep narrative. Yet one of their own leaders, a very prominent one, is now showing up at potential sexual predators' doors and offering to pre-defend them from accusations, in a bid to protect them from their own misdeeds, suggesting a certain lack of sincerity.
So #MeToo needs to wake up or else admit it's part of this machinery. Holder's activity demonstrates that Democratic leaders are out to do all they can to protect the Weinsteins out there due to all the campaign donors among them.
Republicans need to wake up, too. If Republicans, (who by the way, did very well with women candidates in last week's primary), don't seize on this latest instance of Holderian hypocrisy and point out that Democrats speak with forked tongues on #MeToo, they will deserve to lose. This is the low-hanging fruit of the coming midterm election.
Image credit: Campaign screenshot showing Holder's leadership role in the Democratic Party.


Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom
"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com




THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOYS & GIRLS IN CONGRESS GATHER ROUND TO UNLEASH THE WHOLESALE LOOTING OF THEIR BANKSTER PAYMASTERS EVEN MORE….
BOTTOMLESS BAILOUTS AROUND THE CORNER WAITING!



After eight years of the Dodd-Frank bank “reform,” the American financial oligarchy exercises its dictatorship over society and the government more firmly than ever. This unaccountable elite will not tolerate even the most minimal limits on its ability to plunder the economy for its own personal gain.

This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”



BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY ERIC HOLDER DECLARES THAT OBAMA IS

 

(still) “READY TO ROLL” FOR A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE!

 

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/seth-barron-obama-and-building-of.html

 

 


“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of  groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”

OPERATION OBOMB:

DESTABILIZE AMERICA TO LAY GROUNDS FOR A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/seth-barron-obama-and-building-of.html

 

“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”

THE OBAMA MARXIST-MUSLIM BANKSTER-FUNDED THIRD TERM for life:

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/03/obamas-marxism-still-hankering-for.html

 

"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan
*
"We know that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war room in his D.C.

home to plan and execute resistance to the Trump administration and his legislative

agenda.  None of these people care about the American people, or the fact that

Trump won the election because millions of people voted for him."  

Patricia McCarthy / AMERICAN THINKER.com


THE OBAMA COUP: IT STARTED IN CHARLOTTESVILLE

 

 

"We know that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war room in his D.C.

home to plan and execute resistance to the Trump administration and his legislative

agenda.  None of these people care about the American people, or the fact that

Trump won the election because millions of people voted for him."  

Patricia McCarthy / AMERICAN THINKER.com


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/did-barack-obama-start-charlottesville.html

 

 

"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan



OBAMA:

FUNDED BY HIS CRONY CRIMINAL BANKSTERS and ELECTED BY MEXICO – THE FIRST BLACK MAN OR THE FIRST SPY ELECTED TO THE PRESIDENCY???

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/matthew-vadum-spies-like-obama.html

 

Now the outlines of a Watergate-like conspiracy are emerging in which a sitting Democrat president apparently used the apparatus of the state to spy on a Republican presidential candidate. Watergate differed in that President Nixon didn’t get involved in the plot against the Democratic National Committee until later as an accomplice after the fact. Here Obama likely masterminded or oversaw someone like the diabolical Benghazi cover-up artist Ben Rhodes, masterminding the whole thing.

 

"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan

 

Democrats are responsible for tent cities for illegal alien kids




Illegal alien children are flooding across the border.  Some are coming alone; some are accompanied by adults who may or may not be their parents.  The government is overwhelmed by the numbers; recently, the government converted a former Walmart into a home for illegal alien kids.  Can you imagine seeing illegal aliens in a Walmart?  That's surely a first for our nation!
But as space runs out, the government has announced plans to open tent cities to house the illegal alien kids.  Democrats have blasted this as inhumane, and even Republican House speaker Paul Ryan says he is against separating kids from their illegal alien parents.
Well, if he's against it, what is he for?
This whole situation was created by Democrats.  First, Democrats and the courts created a magnet of welfare benefits for illegal aliens who entered the country.  It was so tantalizing that some families south of the border sent their children across, knowing they would get free food, shelter, and education.
Secondly, Obama expanded the definition of "asylum" to include people who claimed they feared "crime gangs" or even feared abusive husbands.  That incentivized illegal aliens to make up stories of persecution and to flood the border, creating another magnet that drew in all these illegal aliens – and their children.
Thirdly, Obama largely stopped prosecuting illegal aliens criminally for crossing the border.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided to start enforcing the law again, which sent parents of illegal aliens to jail.  Children could not accompany parents to jail, therefore they had to be sent somewhere.  The federal government doesn't have facilities to take care of thousands of children and therefore is planning to create a tent city or cities to process the illegal kids until they can be found foster homes.
The liberal media paint this as cruel in the extreme.  But if you look at what caused the children to be here in the first place, it was Democrats.  Democrats expected the parents, and their kids, to be able to walk across the border, be given a court date many years in the future, and be free to melt into the population – in effect, be given a "get out of jail free" card.  People south of the border, knowing this, have flooded across by the millions.
Now that the law is being enforced, it looks cruel to the children.  If there is any cruelty, it is caused by the Democrats, who lured all those kids here.  In the meantime, I suspect that the taxpayer-funded food, shelter, education, and entertainment these kids will receive will still be a big step up from the shacks they hail from.  And perhaps when word filters back across the border that crossing the border illegally is once again taken seriously, the unsustainable flow of illegals, created by the Democrats, will be reduced.
Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.

No comments: