Wednesday, July 11, 2018

BANKSTERS' RENT BOY, SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, AN ADVOCATE FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS and CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT GOES AFTER JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH

SERVANT of LA RAZA CHUCK SCHUMER:


Sen. Charles Schumer told CBS he would work against Kavanaugh with “everything I’ve got.”


TRUMP'S STELLAR SUPREME COURT PICK



A look at Brett Kavanaugh's real judicial record.


President Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement late last month. Judge Kavanaugh, 53, who has served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for 12 years, said that he was “deeply honored” to be nominated to replace Justice Kennedy, for whom he once clerked. If confirmed by the Senate, where the Republicans hold a razor-thin majority, Judge Kavanaugh, a principled strict constructionist, will help solidify a reliably conservative Supreme Court. 
The left is in full resistance mode.  It believes that the judiciary should serve as an additional but unelected political branch, whose duty it is to enact the left’s progressive policy agenda. They want activist justices who will treat the Constitution as a malleable instrument that can be twisted into the image of what the left thinks society should be.  
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, kowtowing to his base, wasted no time in viciously attacking Judge Kavanaugh, claiming that his nomination puts abortion rights and health care protections for women “on the judicial chopping block.”  Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon declared, “There can be no mistaking Trump’s Supreme Court nomination for anything but what it is: a direct attempt to overturn Roe. v. Wade.”
This is only a small taste of the demagoguery, outright lies and outrageous ad hominem attacks against Judge Kavanaugh we can expect in the weeks ahead. Those who revere the Constitution, and who believe, like Alexander Hamilton, that the “rules of legal interpretation” should apply the laws in “conformity to the source from which they are derived,” must get out in front with the truth about this eminently qualified “judge’s judge.”
Constitutional or statutory interpretation guided by a philosophy of judicial restraint begins with the actual words and structure of the text being interpreted. A judge's task is to identify and apply the principles embedded in the text, not to invent new ones. As Judge Kavanaugh explained in his essay entitled “The Judge as Umpire: Ten Principles,“ a judge must endeavor to “follow the law and not to make or re-make the law…you have to understand your proper role in the game: to apply the rules and not to re-make the rules based on your own policy views.”
Time and again, in approximately 300 opinions, including dissents, Judge Kavanaugh has tried to adhere to his best understanding of the text and its animating principles in interpreting the Constitution or a statute, including by applying limits on undue governmental interference with religious freedom, the right to bear arms and a free market economy.  
In his dissenting opinion in Priests for Life v. HHS, (2015), for example, Judge Kavanaugh balanced individuals’ obligations and liberties under two intersecting statutes. He analyzed the government’s interest in promoting free contraceptives under regulations issued to implement the Affordable Care Act against the religious liberties protected under another federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He concluded that regulations issued under the Affordable Care Act requiring that Catholic religious organizations provide free contraceptives or file a special form that identifies or notifies their insurers, under the threat of monetary penalty for non-compliance, went too far. The government’s interest in facilitating access to contraception, he said, could have been achieved by using less restrictive alternatives that would not have placed as much of a burden on the exercise of religious freedom.
In 2011, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a majority opinion of the D.C. Circuit that upheld a ban applied to semi-automatic rifles in the District of Columbia. Since the use of semi-automatic handguns by law-abiding citizens was already constitutionally protected under Supreme Court precedent, the use of semi-automatic rifles by law-abiding citizens should also be protected, he reasoned. Judge Kavanaugh wrote that “our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principles or policy."
Judge Kavanaugh takes “the bedrock underpinnings of our system of separation of powers” seriously, as he articulated in a dissenting opinion regarding Environmental Protection Agency regulations covering greenhouse gases that he believed "exceeded its statutory authority."  Judge Kavanaugh wrote: “The Framers of the Constitution did not grant the Executive Branch the authority to set economic and social policy as it sees fit.  Rather, the Framers gave Congress, along with the President, that legislative role (subject to constitutional limits), and they assigned the Executive Branch the executive power to issue rules and enforce the law within the limits set by Congress.” Again, he made clear that his opinion was not based on policy preferences but rather on the need to “enforce the statutory boundaries” set by Congress.
For reasons also involving the principle of separation of powers, Judge Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, run by a single director, in a decision last January that overturned Judge Kavanaugh’s own prior panel ruling. He compared in his dissent the independent agencies collectively to “a headless fourth branch of the US Government,” which possess “enormous power over the economic and social life of the United States.” Without adequate oversight by the elected branches, they could “pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.” At the very least, Judge Kavanaugh said, there should be a “multi-member structure," which would reduce “the risk of arbitrary decisionmaking and abuse of power, and helps protect individual liberty.” Contrary to the left’s caricature of what he wrote, Judge Kavanaugh was not expressing an anti-consumer sentiment. He was simply expressing a sentiment against unaccountable concentration of power in a single bureaucrat.
One of Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions likely to become a flashpoint in the fight over his confirmation involved the Trump administration’s refusal to allow a pregnant unaccompanied illegal immigrant, detained at the border, to be immediately released from detention for the purpose of receiving an abortion. The administration wanted to wait until a family member, relative or friend in the United States stepped forward as the minor’s “sponsor.” In his dissent from the full D.C. Circuit’s ruling entitling the illegal immigrant teen in custody to release for the purpose of receiving an abortion, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that the majority had wrongly created “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand, thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision.”  In his view the court majority did not follow “the many majority opinions of the Supreme Court, that have repeatedly upheld reasonable regulations that do not impose an undue burden on the abortion right recognized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.” 
Judge Kavanaugh showed respect for the Roe v. Wade precedent. He did not dispute that the teen had a right under Supreme Court precedents to obtain an abortion in the United States, irrespective of how she got here or if elective abortion was illegal in her home country.  However, the question was when and under what circumstances. Judge Kavanagh was not comfortable extending the reach of such precedents to create a new right for an illegal immigrant to receive an immediate abortion on demand on U.S. soil. “The minor is alone and without family or friends,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote. “She is pregnant and has to make a major life decision. Is it really absurd for the United States to think that the minor should be transferred to her immigration sponsor – ordinarily a family member, relative, or friend – before she makes that decision?  And keep in mind that the Government is not forcing the minor to talk to the sponsor about the decision, or to obtain consent.  It is merely seeking to place the minor in a better place when deciding whether to have an abortion.  I suppose people can debate as a matter of policy whether this is always a good idea.  But unconstitutional?  That is far-fetched. After all, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of the minor, and not facilitating abortion, so long as the Government does not impose an undue burden on the abortion decision.”  
Judge Kavanaugh was applying Supreme Court precedents to the unusual circumstances before his court, not ignoring the precedents. Nevertheless, Judge Kavanaugh’s demonizers on the left will pounce on him for his supposedly “callous” disregard for an illegal minor immigrant’s “right” as a human being in U.S. custody to “choose” abortion on demand rather than remain temporarily in detention until a suitable sponsor can be found. The left will thereby merge the explosively emotional issues of detention of illegal immigrant children and the right to choose an abortion, which progressives believe incorrectly is guaranteed by Roe v. Wade in virtually all circumstances.
Ironically, there are also some pro-lifers who were upset with Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion. They did not think he went far enough in taking on Roe v. Wade itself, at least when it comes to illegal immigrants who want an abortion. The same was true with Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in a case decided by the D.C. Circuit in 2011 upholding the constitutionality of Obama's Affordable Care Act. Judge Kavanaugh dissented on narrow jurisdictional grounds, angering some conservatives who thought he should have challenged Obamacare’s constitutionality. Judge Kavanaugh can’t win, since the left will still tag him as being against affordable health care.
Judge Kavanaugh will have some baggage to overcome, including his association with the independent counsel investigation of former President Bill Clinton and his drafting of parts of the Ken Starr report that led to Clinton’s impeachment. He worked on George W. Bush’s legal team during the 2000 Florida recount, after which he served as former President Bush’s White House lawyer and staff secretary, no doubt producing paper in abundance that Democrats will demand to see. Bush nominated Judge Kavanaugh for the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2003, but he was not confirmed until 2006.
Judge Kavanaugh’s law review article in 2009, arguing that Congress should consider enacting a statute exempting the president from both criminal prosecution and civil suits while in office, is already providing ammunition to his opponents seeking to portray Judge Kavanaugh as a tool of President Trump. He was theorizing on what Congress might do in this regard to provide breathing space to any president dealing with life-and-death issues, noting that Congress has the constitutional impeachment power to remove a president for malfeasance. He was not expressing an opinion as to what a court had the power to do on its own, if anything. Nevertheless, Judge Kavanaugh’s opponents can be expected to throw his words back at him out of context during his confirmation hearings to try and “prove” his intent to protect President Trump against a possible subpoena from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office or against an indictment.  
The left will try to destroy Judge Kavanaugh by any means possible, as they successfully did with Judge Bork and tried to do with their “high-tech lynching” of Justice Thomas. They must not be allowed to succeed. Whatever minor faults Judge Kavanaugh may have, he is a towering intellect with a keen legal mind and a heart to go with it who belongs on the Supreme Court.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD:
America’s baby murdering factories…. Your tax dollars at work

“I Cut the Vocal Cord So The Baby Can't Scream.”

Dr. Leah Torres, an OB/GYN in Salt Lake City, Utah, said that when she performs certain abortions she cuts the vocal cord of the baby so "there's really no opportunity" for the child to scream. She also described herself as a "uterus ripper outer" because she performs hysterectomies.


THE DEVASTATING COST OF MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE IN AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS




“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”.  DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE 

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S WAR ON AMERICA’S LEGAL WORKERS, BORDERS AND LAWS as they build the LA RAZA welfare state on our backs.

*
One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances!  MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM


"Chairman of the DNC Keith Ellison was even spotted wearing a shirt stating, "I don't believe in borders" written in Spanish.

According to a new CBS news poll, 63 percent of Americans in competitive congressional districts think those crossing illegally should be immediately deported or arrested.  This is undoubtedly contrary to the views expressed by the Democratic Party.

Their endgame is open borders, which has become evident over the last eight years.  Don't for one second let them convince you otherwise." Evan Berryhill Twitter @EvBerryhill.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/07/assault-on-american-worker-college-grad.html

 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.


THE NEXT MEXICAN INVASION IS AT HAND:

*

"Mexican president candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador called for mass immigration to the United States, declaring it a "human right". We will defend all the (Mexican) invaders in the American," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life, job, welfare, and free medical in the United States."

*

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/07/mexican-president-andres-manuel-lopez.html

*

 "Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting AMNESTY TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added."

*


Billionaire Mexicans tell their poor to JUMP U.S. OPEN BORDERS and LOOT THE STUPID GRINGO… and loot they do!
Billions of dollars are sucked out of America from Mexico’s looting!

1) Mexico ended legal immigration 100 years ago, except for Spanish blood.
2) Mexico is the 17th richest nation but pays the 220th lowest minimum wage to force their subjects to invade the USA. The expands territory for Mexicans, spreads the Spanish language, and culture and genotypes, while earning 17% of Mexico's gross GDP as Foreign Remittance Income.

*

MICHELE MALKIN

Understanding LA RAZA / UNIDOSus: The U.S. tax dollar funded Mexican fascist party which is the fastest growing political party in America

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/07/michelle-malkin-understanding-us-funded.html

Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."

*


Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag

 

*

PAUL KRUGMAN

The disintegration of California, a Mexican satellite welfare state of poverty, crime and high taxes

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/04/paul-krugman-look-at-california-under.html

"Chairman of the DNC Keith Ellison was even spotted wearing a shirt stating, "I don't believe in borders" written in Spanish.

According to a new CBS news poll, 63 percent of Americans in competitive congressional districts think those crossing illegally should be immediately deported or arrested.  This is undoubtedly contrary to the views expressed by the Democratic Party.

Their endgame is open borders, which has become evident over the last eight years.  Don't for one second let them convince you otherwise." Evan Berryhill Twitter @EvBerryhill.

 

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN OF LEGALS LEFT ORPHANED DUE TO A MEX MURDER???

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/06/illegals-separating-american-children.html

Instead Francis Hernandez, an illegal alien driving 81 miles an hour, slammed into a pickup truck, killing the two women inside, and smashing it through the glass wall of the Baskin Robbins. 
Francis Hernandez had been arrested 16 times in 5 years without ever being turned over to immigration authorities. That failure to enforce immigration law separated a little boy from his family forever.  DANIEL GREENFIELD – FRONTPAGE

Mark Levin:
‘Unbridled Immigration, Legal and Illegal, Is Taking the Country Down’
This annual income for an impoverished American family is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in federal funds which are spent on each unaccompanied minor border crosser.
study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER

AMERICA: YOU’RE BETTER OFF BEING AN ILLEGAL!!!
This annual income for an impoverished American family is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in federal funds which are spent on each unaccompanied minor border crosser.
study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER

“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR



DEMS’ DERANGEMENT OVER KAVANAUGH

Progressive reactionaries mount a furious surge.




“Judge Kavanaugh should not be allowed anywhere near our nation’s highest bench. Let’s be clear: a vote for Kavanaugh would be a vote to rip health care from American families and deny women their constitutional right to make their own health care decisions.”
That was a statement from DNC boss Tom Perez shortly after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. In a sense it was ironic because as a DC native and DC Appeal Court judge, the Yale law alum is already near the nation’s highest bench. On the other hand, the statement typified the tide of reaction from leftist Democrats.
“Are you ready for the fight? Are you ready to defend Roe v. Wade?” bellowed a wide-eyed Bernie Sanders, face glowing a bright shade of pink. Many in the Monday crowd may have forgotten that the Vermont socialist would have lost to Trump in 2016 if Hillary Clinton had not rigged the process.
In June, Sanders former cadre Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that Kavanaugh’s views on the president’s eligibility for a criminal investigation constituted an “automatic disqualification” from the high court. In similar style, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, told reporters, “We have an ongoing investigation that is a bi-partisan supported investigation as we saw throughout the Senate committee and a president who is saying, ‘I now have a chance to make sure the Supreme Court gives me a get out of jail free card.’” So the Yale Law grad has already determined the president’s guilt and sentence.
According to California Senator Kamala Harris, who got her start under Willie Brown, “Judge Kavanaugh has consistently proven to be a conservative ideologue instead of a mainstream jurist.” And the Trump pick “represents a direct and fundamental threat to the promise of equality.”
Fellow California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been comparing President Trump’s policies to “Nazi Germany,” went on record that Kavanaugh’s views “are far outside the legal mainstream when it comes to access to health care, executive power, gun safety, worker protections, women’s reproductive freedom, and the government’s ability to ensure clean air and water, to name a few.”
BLOG: TIM KAINE IS A  BANKSTERS' RENT BOY FOR OPEN BORDERS
Hillary’s vice-presidential loser Tim Kaine told reporters “I’m focused on whether Judge Kavanaugh would safeguard the civil rights of all Americans regardless of race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation and ensure that all are protected from discrimination.” Sen. Mark Warner said Kavanaugh came from “a list put together by ultra-conservative groups” so he was “not the right pick to serve on our nation’s highest court.”
Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who claims to be Native American, told the crowds, “We didn’t get into this fight when the odds would be stacked into our favor. We got into this fight to build a country that embodies the best in America.”
Sen. Charles Schumer told CBS he would work against Kavanaugh with “everything I’ve got.”
Schumer’s former aide Christopher Hahn, opposes Kavanaugh because Mitch McConnell “stole” the court slot from POTUS 44 pick Merrick Garland.
“With Brett Kavanaugh, Trump could cement an extremist conservative Supreme Court majority hostile to working people for a generation,” tweeted Rep. Keith Ellison. “With so much at risk we must fight this pick with everything we've got to protect women’s rights, workers’ rights, civil rights and voting rights.”
For Sen. Dick Durbin, “replacing Justice Kennedy’s swing vote with a far-right jurist like Judge Kavanaughcould change the rules in America.” The Judiciary Committee member added, “with a subservient Republican Congress and a far-right Supreme Court, there is a real risk that the worst impulses of the Trump presidency will go unchecked.”
For Kelli Musick of the Feminist Majority Foundation, “If Trump's nominee is confirmed, the Trump Court will set out to gut the Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ rights, affirmative action, protections for workers, access to birth control, and voting rights, among other hard won gains. This is the fight of our lives.”
For the NAACP, “Brett Kavanaugh is a dangerous ideologue whose extreme views on civil rights would solidify a far right majority on the Supreme Court.” We could see “further exclusion of communities of color from participation in our democracy.  We could see racism continue to flourish within the criminal justice system.” For an unnamed “Muslim Civil Rights Group” Kavanaugh on the court “would give Trump a green light to put his bigoted agenda in place without checks and without regard to the rule of law.” And so on.
Those who find these reactionaries confusing might consult law professors John Yoo and Robert Delahunty. As they note, Kavanaugh has written no opinions on abortion, gay marriage or religion but he does take issue with the administrative state that threatens liberty and avoids democratic accountability. As Yoo and Delahunty show, “Kavanaugh has repeatedly challenged the foundations of this runaway state.” Odds are he would do the same if confirmed to the court.
At this writing, 2016 loser Hillary Clinton is keeping quiet on Kavanaugh but according to the Washington Post“Clinton can win the presidency in 2020 thanks to a combination of demographic and electoral shifts among voters and uncertainty about their futures.”
If Hillary Clinton runs and wins, she may be able to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court. That’s the way it works in America.

HILLARY CLINTON IS SO CORRUPT EVEN THE MEXICAN INVADERS WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HER DESPITE HER ENDLESS HISPANDERING AND PROMISE OF CHAIN MIGRATION.

 

Charlie Daniels: We Need a Wall – But That’s Just the Beginning

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/04/charlie-daniels-we-need-wall-but-thats.html

“I believe that if Hillary had been elected she would have found a way to give amnesty and eventually citizenship to all the millions of Hispanics who are now here illegally and would have, in theory, have opened the border so that more and more could cross and be eligible to vote, until an undefeatable voting block would have been created, putting a more and more progressive electorate into power.” CHARLIE DANIELS

“If the Constitution did not forbid cruel and unusual punishment, the sentence I would like to see imposed would place both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the same 8-by-12 cell.”    ROBERT ARVAY – AMERICAN THINKER com

LOOKING LIKE 30 YEARS FOR HILLARY CLINTON …. OBAMA MAY FOLLOW HER!
MICHAEL BARONE
“The Lawlessness of the Obama Administration: A never-ending story.”
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

Leaked Julian Assange Message:


Hillary Is A ‘Well Connected, Sadistic Sociopath’



"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 LEFT’S IMMIGRATION CON GAME


Breaking through the lies about Ellis Island and more.



 
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270686/lefts-immigration-con-game-michael-cutler
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
With that famous quote George Orwell warned decades ago against history revisionists and that which has come to be referred to as “fake news.”
On July 4, 2018, the New York Post headline read, "Statue of Liberty Climber Identified as Immigrant Activist."
The Post and other news outlets have identified this ”immigrant activist” as Therese Patricia Okoumou — a 44-year-old originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
How better to celebrate the birth of our nation than stage a dangerous illegal protest against the enforcement of America’s immigration laws at the Statue of Liberty?  Okoumou’s actions threatened to severely damage a precious national landmark and endangered the lives of hundreds of tourists -- who had patiently waited in line, then paid a steep admission fee to ferry to Liberty Island -- only to be evacuated because of her illegal hijinks.
Officers of the NYPD were also endangered by Okoumou's stupid trick when they had to neutralize her threat to the public and to the Statue of Liberty when they took her into custody.
According to various reports about Okoumou, she is quite comfortable with both law-breaking and initiating lawsuits against businesses for alleged "racism."
Ludicrously, it appears she was admitted into the United States lawfully by the very same immigration authorities she is now fighting against.
While she was not alone at the protest demanding an end to ICE, of all the members of the group she reportedly belongs to, “Rise and Resist,” she was the only one to climb the iconic “Lady in the Harbor.”
There is an irresistible irony here.  Last year I wrote an article, "Aliens Trespassing," in which I discussed the proposed legislation by --  none other than -- New York’s Senior Senator Chuck Schumer, who sought to make trespassing on national landmarks a federal crime with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for a conviction.
Schumer's own press release included a reference to "trespassers from overseas" -- in other words, "aliens."
Yet Schumer, eager to see the demise of ICE along with his fellow travelers of the Democratic Party, apparently could not care less about aliens who trespass on America.
For decades, immigration anarchists have exploited Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty and Emma Lazarus' poem, The New Colossus, falsely portraying the history of immigration and romanticizing the way that America supposedly embraced all new-comers a century ago and lamenting the demise of Ellis Island.
In so doing they have rewritten history, turning the immigration debate into a war of words where slogans based on lies are repeated as frequently as possible.  This is an example of the principle of “The Big Lie” used with great effectiveness by the Third Reich.
An extraordinary film, Forgotten Ellis Island, is a must-see documentary that tells the true story about Ellis Island, and the story is not particularly pretty or romantic.
To begin with, Ellis Island was not a natural island but was constructed on rocks and debris removed during the construction of the massive New York City subway system.  By situating this federal facility on this artificial island, no aliens could come ashore and abscond the way that today aliens exploit the lunacy known as “catch & release” -- a policy that incidentally does not only occur along the borders of the United States but,  similarly plagues the integrity of the immigration system from within the interior of the United States.
The only way for aliens to get from Ellis Island to New York City, and hence the U.S. mainland, was by a government-operated ferry.
According to the documentary, Ellis Island included a massive hospital complex that consisted of 22 buildings.
One hundred years ago, Public Health officials worked with immigration inspectors to process the arriving immigrants.  Back then, the most significant concerns with admission decisions centered on health-related issues.
There were two reasons for this: genuine concerns about illnesses being transported into the U.S. and that antibiotics were, then, non-existent.  Epidemics could be devastating.  
Aside from public health, the second issue of great concern about immigration then -- but one that is never discussed today by immigration anarchists -- is whether the arriving immigrants were too weak, mentally ill or otherwise unable to work and support themselves.
Aliens who were ill or deemed too weak or mentally incapable of working were deported, even if it meant that they would be permanently separated from their families.  Families that were determined to remain together had but one alternative: return to their native countries.
Back then, Eastern Europeans, Italians, Jews and others were openly discriminated against and frequently barred from entering the United States.
Today, under the guise of being politically correct, globalists beginning with Jimmy Carter, started modifying the language of the immigration debate to alter the public’s understanding of the issues.
The term “alien” was expunged from the vernacular of INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) employees by Carter when describing foreign nationals present in the United States who demanded that henceforth illegal aliens be referred to as “undocumented immigrants,”  or simply immigrants.
This was not done to be polite or politically correct, but to remove the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens.  
We must stop referring to propaganda as examples of "political correctness" and call it what it indeed is: Orwellian Newspeak. 
Incredibly, the dreaded term “alien” was incorporated in the acronym DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act).  
Today, the media rarely reports that the DREAM Act was an acronym; instead, they link it to the “American Dream,” where illegal aliens are “DREAMERs.”  That “dream,” however, has become increasingly elusive for Americans and lawful immigrants.
As for the DREAMers, the media incessantly describes them as young “immigrants” brought to the United States illegally as children when they had no control over their circumstances.  Thus, they claim, it would be unfair to punish children for the crimes of their parents and, accordingly, it is only reasonable and compassionate to provide them with permanent lawful status and, perhaps, pathways to U.S.citizenship.
Today these “young” aliens could conceivably be in their mid-thirties to qualify as DREAMERs, provided they claim to have been brought to the U.S. before their 16th birthday.
However, no record of entry is created when aliens first enter the United States without inspection.  Routine interviews are impossible, as are field investigations needed to determine the legitimacy of claims because of the significant number of aliens who could jam the existing system to participate in this massive amnesty program.   This boondoggle will serve as an open invitation for epic levels of immigration fraud wherein potentially millions of illegal aliens, some of whom are middle-aged, could successfully game and overwhelm our system, making a further mockery of the U.S. immigration system. 
Now immigration anarchists demand the destruction of ICE.
Foreign criminals, drug cartels, and terrorists would love free access to America. Human traffickers would go un-investigated and unpunished. 
Greedy employers who fire Americans and hire illegal aliens would have nothing to fear.
Illegal alien parents who endanger their children by smuggling them into the United States would face no consequences for their crimes.
Famed playwright George Bernard Shaw lamented that “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.” Learning from history requires access to unbiased and factual accounts of the news and of history. Liars and their lies must be exposed and rejected.
Photo: Jonathan McIntosh

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.

Rep. Lamar Smith: Scripture Opposes Amnesty




LONDON, ENGLAND - MAY 25: The 400 year old King James Bible on display in Lambeth Palace Library on May 25, 2011 in London, England. The book is part of an exhibition called "Out of the Original Sacred Tongues", showing bibles in various languages from as early as the 10th …
Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images
 371









American politicians, religious leaders, and lay citizens have offered comment on the connection between biblical teachings and immigration issues.

Many have used their interpretation of the Bible to endorse open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants in the country. There is just one problem that plagues these claims: The Bible contains numerous passages that do not support amnesty and instead support the rule of law.
The Scriptures clearly indicate that God charges civil authorities with preserving order, protecting citizens, and punishing wrongdoers. A prime passage is Romans 13:1-7: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” Neither God nor the Bible ever rewards lawlessness (1 Timothy 1: 8-10).
Consider Leviticus 19:33-34, frequently cited by amnesty advocates: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Mass-immigration and amnesty advocates claim that these passages mandate that a society welcome any and all foreigners. But such passages do not mean that foreigners should disregard civil laws to enter illegally or that we should overlook it when they do. The law God laid down for Israel allowed legal distinctions to be drawn between natives and non-natives.
Also, the Hebrew term for “sojourn,” as well as the dictionary definition, means “temporary stay.” A related term used in some scriptural translations is “stranger.” So this passage offers no scriptural sanction for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to remain permanently in the United States. In the New Testament, the word “stranger” denotes one who is simply unknown (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible), not someone who is a foreigner.
Related to the Leviticus citation is the passage about treatment of “the least of these my brothers” – the hungry, the naked, the stranger, the prisoner. This quote from Matthew 25: 31-46 plainly is based on individual acts of kindness and does not mandate a public policy. A note in the New Interpreter’s Bible says, “… it is the individual human beings, not nations as corporate political structures, that stand before the judgment.”
Finally, Bible passages support borderd (Exodus 19:12), boundaries (Deuteronomy 32:8; Proverbs 22:28), standards (Numbers 2:17), and order (Isaiah 9:7). Borders and boundaries are consistent and important principles throughout the Bible, being mentioned some 200 times in one context or another. This suggests little biblical support for anyone’s claim to have a “right” to live somewhere illegally.
Americans need not apologize for wanting to uphold the rule of law. We have every right to be a sovereign nation. Our nation has a wonderful tradition of welcoming newcomers. Furthermore, we admit more than one million legal immigrants a year, far more than any other country.
There is a difference, though, between those who play by the rules and come in the right way and those who don’t. And the Bible’s commentary on strangers and foreigners makes that clear.
Congressman Smith represents the 21st District of Texas. He serves as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and is a former chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee. Rep. Smith founded the Border Security Caucus.

No comments: