FLASHBACK – MSNBC: Border Wall a Problem: Birds, Bats Might Not Be Able To Fly Over It

 

This is my choice for my Flashback Saturday. First posted in April in 2017, it seems a fitting tribute to the best of MSNBC. The environmentalists are ready to spring into action: Enjoy!

 

MSNBC Is Worried That Birds (Yes, Birds) Won’t Be Able To Fly Over Trump’s Border Wall

Melvin began the segments discussing Rep. Raul Graijalva (D-AZ) and the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit against the federal government over the border enforcement project. In California, the state legislature is considering punishing construction firms that participate in building the wall.

 

Advertisements

Italy Grows a Pair – tells U.N. Migrant Compact to take a hike

 

 

Just In:  Italy Grows a Pair

by Mustang

(Rejects Global Fascism re: Immigration Policy)

The United Nations Global Compact for Migration met at a conference in Marrakech, Morocco to adopt the agreement that intends to establish global migration as a human right.  That’s not all: it also aimed to make any criticism of migration a criminal violation through a so-called hate crimes legislation.  In selling this bill of goods, the United Nations claims the following:

“Today, there are over 250 million migrants around the world living outside their country of birth.  This figure is expected to grow for a number of reasons, including population growth, increasing connectivity, trade, rising inequality, demographic imbalances, and climate change.  Migration provides immense opportunity and benefits—for the migrants, host communities, and communities of origin.  However, when poorly regulated it can create significant challenges.  These challenges include overwhelming social infrastructures with the unexpected arrival of large numbers of people and the deaths of migrants undertaking dangerous journeys.”

I think the UN is right about the challenges, but remains undeterred as it relates to the struggling receiving communities.  There are all sorts of counter-arguments to this foolishness, including the fact that if people are allowed to pick up and move away from their third or fourth-world cesspool country, then there will never be an impetus within that country to change direction that might benefit all of its citizens.  Suppose British colonists in North America, fed up with tyranny, simply moved away to Mexico —would there ever have been an American Revolution?  How would this have impacted our country today?  Since we’re talking about Mexico, this is precisely why we Americans have so many illegal immigrants from that cesspool.

In any case, Italy isn’t having any of this.  In direct opposition to the global fascists in the United Nations (why are they headquartered in New York, again?), the Italian legislation has just passed a law that pushes back against the compact.  Here’s what they’ve done:

1.Italy will only grant asylum to legitimate refugees of war, or victims of political persecution.  If individuals who have been granted asylum break the law, which is to say convicted of crimes involving threats of violence to public officials, physical assault, female genital mutilation, or theft, they will be deported

2.Italy has approved tough new immigration and security laws that will make it easier to deport criminal migrants, including the stripping them of Italian citizenship.  The vote in the lower house was 396 to 99.  The new law was promulgated on 3 December 2018.

3.Key provisions of the new law are the Elimination of Humanitarian Protection, which was a provision that sought to undermine the process of asylum; Extends periods of detention for Migrants to 180 days;

Increases funding for deportation of migrants; makes it easier to revoke the status of migrants when they become criminals or trouble-makers; restricts migrants to those identified as “safe countries of origin,” which means countries that have well-established democratic political systems;

decreases the use of shelters to only unaccompanied minors, and only until their situation can be resolved; authorizes revocation of citizenship for any terrorist activity or involvement; increases security measures to guarantee public safety.

Naturally the Italian press is going bonkers over the new law, and I imagine the UN weenies are wetting their pants, but given the events of France over the past week or ten days, Italy isn’t the only rebel to UN foolishness. 

Presently, there are 12 European Union members who have similar restrictions to migration.  Bottom line?  It makes sense to the survival of national and community identity.  Italy isn’t being “mean.”  

It is the main European gateway for migrants arriving by sea.  In 2017, there were 119,369 sea-borne migrants; the year before that, 181,436.  Apparently, Italy has decided that enough is enough.  

Italy will not sign the compact, and no Italian officials will attend the conference in Marrakech.  In renouncing the UN Compact, Italy is joined by Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the United States.

To me, this is good news —but the United Nations is still traveling at the speed of light in the wrong direction.  Perhaps President Trump should simply suspend any further payments to the UN until it begins acting like an organization composed of mature adults, rather than liberal “the world isn’t fair” teenagers.   

 

Mexicans revolt over illegal immigration ‘caravan’

 

Here is what the media isn’t telling you or more importantly not showing. We had been hearing how the Mexicans are embracing all of those headed our way. The so-called caravan of so many “Nuclear families” are going nuclear in Tijuana and apparently not so many are made up of Mom Dad and a couple of kids. No, they are just the opposite and the citizens have had enough apparently. Looks like Trump is taking about 100 applicants a day for asylum. That should take a couple of years.

I’m waiting for the segment where CNN and MSNBC explain to us why Mexicans are white supremacists…

On Sunday, displeased Tijuana residents waved Mexican flags, sang the Mexican national anthem and chanted “Out! Out!” in front of a statue of the Aztec ruler Cuauhtémoc, one mile (1.6km) from the US border. They accused the migrants of being messy, ungrateful and a danger to Tijuana. They also complained about how the caravan forced its way into Mexico, calling it an “invasion”. And they voiced worries that their taxes might be spent to care for the group.

“We don’t want them in Tijuana,” protesters shouted.

 

The Guardian

 

 

Flashback: Obama held dozens of meetings on Food Stamps with Mexico!

 

Time for a Saturday Flashback! Why the Caravan now?

Now with the onslaught of the so-called “caravan” reaching our borders, am I the only one wondering how it came to this? It sure would have to a be some big pot of gold for me to want to head on down the highway filled with my future so uncertain.

But for these folks, was it so uncertain in their minds? Or have they been indoctrinated for many years about all the goodies waiting here at the end of the rainbow. For Saturday’s flashback, I chose one from October 2012 and added a couple of other links to some of my old posts from Obama’s heyday of operations:

Obama minions held dozens of meetings on food stamps with Mexico

Food Stamp Awareness!

 

 

What happened to the requirement that those who entered our country had to be self-supporting? For those waiting years to enter our country legally, documentation is required. One can only wonder about the intent of this, other than to secure the support of Obama.

This really is cynical and any hard-working Mexican who wants to live the American dream, I would think it would be offensive. But then what do I know. Thanks to a blogger we have the story. Here we go:

The Obama administration met with Mexican officials and held other events to discuss enrollment in food stamps and similar programs roughly 30 times since President Obama took office, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack revealed in a recent letter to Congress.

The initiative is one of several the agency has “to promote awareness of nutrition assistance among those who need benefits and meet all program requirements under current law,” Vilsack told Sessions in the 24-page letter, dated Sept. 12.

They were among 151 documented meetings and events held since 2004, when the United States and Mexico first started partnering on food-stamp awareness. That partnership, though, has raised alarm with Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is concerned the collaboration amounts to a vehicle for the USDA to pressure people onto the food-stamp rolls — in this case, noncitizen immigrants from Mexico.

Vilsack released the information in response to Sessions’ request this summer for more details about the U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Nutrition Assistance initiative, which educates Mexican immigrants about food stamps and other assistance.

Read more: Fox News

Mexico cut deal to send more illegals to the United States

On Monday, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Guatemalan president Otto Perez Molina held a joint press conference in Playas de Catazaja, Mexico, to officially announce an agreement to make it easier for those making the illegal journey to the United States from Central America, to cross into Mexico.

 

Mexico Trucks rolling across America – U.S. pays for upgrades

The first Mexican carrier is set to roll deep into the U.S. interior within days, but American trucking union leaders and two California congressmen aren’t giving up on stopping the cross-border trucking program. CNS News . But first, because Mexicans would not pay for meeting our EPA standards, we will. Nice. Then we have the security issues, but hey, what’s a few more Mexicans, terrorists, or whatever.

U.S. pays to upgrade Mexican Trucks

In the latest effort to accommodate its cherished trade partner in the south, the U.S. government is paying to upgrade outdated Mexican trucks that hemorrhage illegal amounts of exhaust on their trips north to deliver merchandise.

White House loosens opens up the Mexico Border Rules

President Barack Obama’s administration is quietly offering a quasi-amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, while aiming to win reelection by mobilizing a wave of new Hispanic voters, say supporters of stronger immigration law enforcement.

The new rules were quietly announced Friday with a new memo from top officials at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The “prosecutorial discretion” memo says officials need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.

“We think it is an excellent step,” said Laura Vasquez, at the Hispanic-advocacy group, La Raza, which pushed for the policies, and which is working with other groups to register Hispanics to vote in 2012. “What’s very important is how the prosecutorial discretion memo is implemented” on the streets, she said. I just bet you do!!

The Hispanic vote could be crucial in the 2012 election, because the Obama campaign hopes to offset its declining poll ratings by registering new Hispanic voters in crucial swing states, such as Virginia and North Carolina.
“They’re pushing the [immigration] agents to be even more lax, to go further in not enforcing the law,” said Kris Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state. “At a time when millions of Americans are unemployed and looking for work, this is more bad news coming from the Obama administration

300,000 anchor babies each year exceed U.S birthrate in 48 States

 

Just in case you still think we are keeping our culture, think again. But before we get to this, think about what Florida is considering. Don’t worry about anchor babies, Florida wants the “migrant” caravan. Now thats a joke.

It is unbelievable that Florida is even considering turning itself turning into a Marxist state. Florida under Gillum would welcome the 14,000 illegal migrant caravan.

and if the above didn’t cause concern, try this-

New wide-ranging analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies‘ Steven Camarotta reveals that there are roughly 297,000 births per year to illegal immigrants.

There are now more illegal aliens giving birth to anchor babies in the Los Angeles, California metro area than there are total United States births in 14 states and the District of Columbia.

The analysis notes that the nearly 300,000 anchor babies born every year in the U.S. exceed the total number of all U.S. births in all but two states: California and Texas. Likewise, the annual number of anchor babies born in the U.S. exceeds the number of births in 16 states plus the District of Colombia, combined. –

As Breitbart News reported, in the Los Angeles, California metro area, illegal alien births make up nearly 18 percent of all births in the region. In the Las Vegas, Nevada metro area, illegal alien births account for about 17 percent of all births.

California — a sanctuary state for illegal aliens — has the largest number of illegal alien births with about 65,000 illegal alien births every year. Texas has about 51,000 illegal alien births every year, while Florida has about 16,000 illegal alien births every year.

The Supreme Court, however, has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea. There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. — exceeding the annual roughly 4 millionAmerican babies born every year.

READ MORE

No Peace, No Joy

 

Post by Mustang

One wonders how it is possible to convict a police officer for 30 counts of sexual assault against women, to receive two life sentences for his crimes, and then achieve parole after only seven years in prison.  Combine this with the fact that the Birmingham Penitentiary in the UK is far more dangerous to inmates and custodial officers than any place within the city’s highest crime area.

The fact that some felons, some of whom have a rap-sheet longer than a man’s arm, walk out of court scot-free after such additional offenses as breaking a man’s jaw in three places, or beating elderly people with a hammer, or selling drugs to adolescents.

It would appear that there is no justice for our British cousins, and I suspect that part of this is the result of the fact that British citizens are not allowed to vote for their local magistrates.  They are appointed by the government.  It is, at first blush, evidence that no government is a trustworthy custodian of society’s peace and security.

We Americans should not gloat, however.  Considering the number of murders, manslaughters, and sexual assaults perpetrated against our own citizens by illegal aliens, we are in no position to criticize our British cousins.  Our system is every bit as broken as theirs’s —and we do get to select our judges.

My good friend “Kid” recently posted a rant at his blog about the murder of Miss Molly Tibbets, whose only mistake was assuming that she could jog in the park without fear of losing her life.

I have to ask; what kind of a society are we to put up with this nonsense?  We often hear the term “first responder,” generally referring to police officers who are charged with “serving and protecting” their communities, but I don’t think these uniformed people are first responders at all.

WE are the first responders; it is up to us to defend ourselves, first, because quite frankly, you call the emergency response telephone number and then wait for twenty or more minutes for the arrival of our saviors.  By the time police arrive, the damage is irreparably done.

My point is that had Molly’s parents given her the facility for protecting herself, including arming her for self-defense, Molly would still be with us.  Our mistake is in the assumption that the government has our back; it is a failure that has dire consequences.

I wonder how long it will take Americans to wake up to this sad, new reality: the world is a dangerous place, particularly when our own government ignores literally millions of illegal aliens, a large percentage of whom seek to do us harm, and yet does nothing toward enhancing our personal and communal security.

I wonder how many more Kate Steinle’s and Molly Tibbets’ we must endure before we finally wake up.

Enter SCOTUS Brett Kavanaugh – The positives and concerns

 

Daniel Horowitz wrote an excellent piece at the Conservative Review that Mark Levin suggested reading. I made a special effort to catch Levin’s program as I was curious as to Mark’s take on the SCOTUS pick. The big concern was Kavanaugh starting the ball rolling with the Obamacare as a tax. I suggest wandering over to the Conservative Review for a balanced view and thoughts on the judiciary.

The full podcast is out there at Levin’s website and on YouTube if you want the full thing. I agree with Mark. Let’s ask some questions. Must we follow and support blindly? Or can we raise questions without feeling disloyal to Trump?

 

 

Below are some points:

Here are several concerns that conservatives should research thoroughly throughout the confirmation process and Kavanaugh’s meetings with senators:

  • Obamacare regulation as a tax: In Seven-Sky v. Holder (2011), Kavanaugh wrote a dissent opining that the individual mandate of Obamacare could not be challenged in court because, under the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867, no lawsuit can be brought until the plaintiff actually was forced to pay the tax, which in this case wasn’t for another few years. I’m a big stickler for courts staying in their lane and properly abiding by rules of standing, but in this case his entire rationale was built upon a dangerous premise that a government mandate/penalty was really a tax. This served as the basis for John Roberts’ infamous opinion upholding Obamacare.

 

  • Endless standing to rip God out of the public square: In Newdow v. Roberts, an infamous atheist sued to take the words “so help me God” out of the presidential oath of office. Aside from it being insane to suggest this violates the Establishment Clause, the notion that a random person could get standing to sue and that this is even a justiciable case violates the very essence of what distinguishes a court from a legislature. It lies at the core of what is allowing the ACLU to shut down our civilization for years with radical forum-shopped lower courts. While, in his separate opinion, Kavanaugh ruled the right way on the Establishment Clause, he held that the plaintiff indeed had valid standing to sue as “offended observers.” This is the type of nonsense that is plaguing public prayer and display of the Ten Commandments across the country. It is simply astounding for any originalist to disagree with other justices in granting such standing and is very consequential for cases that will reach the Supreme Court soon. Kavanaugh hid behind Supreme Court precedent, but admitted that the high court never directly addressed the issue of this type of standing.

These rulings taken together, Kavanaugh is essentially saying that a random atheist with an obscure and abstract claim against a presidential oath can get standing, but individuals directly forced to purchase a private product and engage in commerce couldn’t get standing.

  • Contraception as a “compelling government interest”: Almost every circuit upheld Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Like most of the originalist judges, Kavanaugh dissented from these opinions and sided with plaintiffs in Priests for Life, which is good. But what is still puzzling is that he gratuitously and explicitly conceded that the government has “a compelling interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception.” While the Supreme Court did assume that the government might have a general interest in promoting contraception, the court never assumed, much less ruled, that such an interest would apply to the narrow subset of employees at religious institutions. The fact that he didn’t join the stronger dissent from Judges Brown and Henderson – built upon the premise that the government must find a compelling interest specifically in mandating “seamless” coverage – raises concerns that we won’t see him categorically opposing the Left on these issues and joining Thomas on the court.

 

  • Immigration: Immigration is perhaps the most important issue winding through the courts now, and most of the nominees had thin records on the issue. I haven’t seen anything big on the fundamental issues of the plenary power doctrine, for better or worse. However, as we reported last year, the D.C. Circuit absurdly granted an illegal alien the right to demand access to an abortion. While Kavanaugh rightly dissented on the grounds that the opinion drastically expanded abortion jurisprudence, he declined to sign on to Judge Karen Henderson’s indispensable dissent, finally laying down the law on sovereignty and the plenary power doctrine. That was a much-needed dissent, given what is going on throughout the circuits on immigration, and it is a bit peculiar that he didn’t sign on to that dissent, while Henderson signed onto Kavanaugh’s dissent tackling the abortion angle.

Snip…

“At least he’s a lot better than the other side” is no longer good enough. If we are going to accept the premise, as the president himself did last night, that “The Supreme Court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our Republic, the Constitution of the United States,” we can’t afford to settle for anything less than the best. The aforementioned concerns notwithstanding, conservatives should be happy with much of Kavanaugh’s record but should look a little deeper before jumping in with both feet.

Full thing at Conservative Review 

%d bloggers like this: