Displaying posts categorized under



Aliens Trespassing Sen. Schumer, his congressional cohorts, and leftist hypocrisy. Michael Cutler

In order to minimize the dangers posed by aliens who run our borders and evade the inspection process, open borders / immigration anarchists insist that such illegal aliens are simply entering “Undocumented.” However, the unmistakeable truth is that these aliens are, in the parlance of immigration enforcement personnel, “Entering Without Inspection” (EWI).

For decades, beginning with the duplicitous efforts of President Jimmy Carter: Originator Of The Orwellian Term ‘Undocomented Immigrant’ to blur the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens, globalists inside as well as outside our government, have sought to undermine the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Recently, many journalists have whined that illegal aliens who purportedly have no “serious criminal histories” have been arrested by ICE under the Trump administration, ignoring that aliens who enter the United States illegally or violate the terms of lawful admissions are subject to arrest and removal (deportation) irrespective of whether or not they violated any other laws.

An alien who enters without inspection violates Title 8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien and may face up to 2 years in prison if he/she has done this more than once.

Furthermore, an alien who has been previously deported and subsequently reenters without authority commits a felony that may, if the alien has a serious criminal history, carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison under Title 8 U.S. Code § 1326 – Reentry of removed aliens.

Congressional Democrats and some Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham have attacked President Trump for his plans to secure the U.S./Mexican border and effectively enforce our immigration laws.

McCain and Graham have aligned themselves with Senator Chuck Schumer likely because of their shared globalist views on immigration. They were, after all, members of the “Gang of Eight” or, as I have come to refer to them, “The Eight Gangsters.”

Good Riddance Hijab-wearing Muslim NSC staffer quits, blames Trump, claims victim status. Robert Spencer

The establishment media has found a new heroine: Rumana Ahmed, a hijab-wearing Muslim woman who worked at the National Security Council during the Obama administration and for eight days into the Trump administration, at which point she quit.

Ahmed explained: “I had to leave because it was an insult walking into this country’s most historic building every day under an administration that is working against and vilifying everything I stand for as an American and as a Muslim.” That’s enough to send the media into self-righteous ululations of anti-Trump fury, but as always, there is more to this story than what the media is telling you, and a good deal about Rumana Ahmed that they would prefer you did not know.

In her piece in The Atlantic explaining why she left the Trump NSC (and it is important to note that she wasn’t fired by her supposedly “Islamophobic” new bosses; she quit), Ahmed sounds themes of post-9/11 Muslim victimhood that have become familiar tropes among Leftists: after recounting her idyllic life “living the American dream,” she says: “After 9/11, everything would change. On top of my shock, horror, and heartbreak, I had to deal with the fear some kids suddenly felt towards me. I was glared at, cursed at, and spat at in public and in school. People called me a ‘terrorist’ and told me, ‘go back to your country.’”

Not surprisingly, Ahmed made no mention of the fact that this Muslim victimhood narrative has been sullied, if not vitiated entirely, by the high number of “anti-Muslim hate crimes” that turn out to have been faked by Muslims. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques and even murders: a New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

Ahmed blamed yet another murder on “Islamophobia”: “A harsher world began to reemerge in 2015,” she wrote in The Atlantic. “In February, three young American Muslim students were killed in their Chapel Hill home by an Islamophobe. Both the media and administration were slow to address the attack, as if the dead had to be vetted before they could be mourned. It was emotionally devastating.”

In reality, there is no evidence that the Chapel Hill murders were committed by an “Islamophobe.” U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand declared the day after the murders: “The events of yesterday are not part of a targeting campaign against Muslims in North Carolina.” Rand said that there was “no information this is part of an organized event against Muslims.” Nor has any emerged since then, although that fact has not stopped Islamic advocacy groups from routinely treating these murders as evidence of a wave of anti-Muslim hatred in the U.S. Ruhana Ahmed in The Atlantic abets this cynical and disingenuous agenda.

Finally: New Rules of Engagement for U.S. Troops in Iraq By Michael Walsh

As the utterly pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on, going on 16 years after 9/11, the U.S. has finally moved to cut some of the bureaucratic red tape that’s prevented our troops from getting the job done for the past eight years:

Just a few months ago, Lt. Col. Browning’s phone conversation would have been impossible. Rather than request assistance directly, his call would have likely been routed through a joint command center much farther from the battle zone.
In the fight against ISIS in Mosul, the United States has adjusted its rules of engagement as American and other international troops are now closer to front-line fighting than before. During the push to take Mosul International Airport on Thursday, American and European advisers were embedded with forward Iraqi rapid response and special forces units.

Didn’t Obama say he ended the war in Iraq? Never mind:

Coalition officials say the changes are helping speed up Iraqi military gains, but they mark a steady escalation of U.S. involvement in Iraq that also reflects lingering shortcomings on the part of Iraq’s armed forces and growing political and military pressure to finish the Mosul operation quickly. This closer relationship is new.

In the lead-up to the operation to retake Mosul, U.S. forces steadily increased their footprint in Iraq, increasing the number of troops in the country and moving outposts closer to front-line fighting. But the number of U.S. forces on or near the front lines remained relatively small.

Under the December directive and an additional directive issued a few weeks ago, Browning said advisers like him embedded at the brigade level are now able to directly deliver support such as airstrikes and artillery fire to the units they’re partnered with. Previously, such support “would have gone through a whole bureaucracy and through Baghdad,” he said.

The spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, Air Force Col. John Dorrian, confirmed to The Associated Press the rules of engagement in the fight against ISIS in Iraq were adjusted by the December directive, explaining that some coalition troops were given the “ability to call in airstrikes without going through a strike cell.”

Its about time. One of the reasons, historically, that American forces have been superior is that combat decisions were made on the ground, right down to the junior officer level; this was one of our strategic advantages over the Wehrmacht in World War II. But of course under the Democrats (and, to be fair, under Bush as well), American troops were hobbled so as not to give offense to our “coalition partners” and to mollify the excitable locals.

Now, please, let’s get on with it, finish ISIS, and get the troops home.

Still More Oscar Hypocrisy — Now foreigners get in on the act By Ethel C. Fenig

As you may have heard, or even watched (that’s ok, don’t be embarrassed, many people did) the bash President Donald J. Trump (R) specially wrapped into a self-love-fest known as the Academy Awards simpered for four hours Sunday night. Attired in outfits that cost more than a month’s salary for the average citizen — and that’s just the men — while surrounded and protected by guards (some even with guns) and other protective barriers, (sort of like uhm, walls) several of the presenters, the winners, and the host, Jimmy Kimmel, threw in digs at the president while proclaiming their own superiority and love. Yeah, that smugness will pack the 48% of the people who voted for Trump into the theaters.

Even an aging Warren Beatty, who did more than grab his you-know-what (I can’t really tell you as this is a blog suitable for family reading) in his prime, did manage to squeeze in a few cliches of love and peace and getting along with everyone which proved handy when he mistakenly announced the wrong winner of the best film at the finale. And so, quite suitably, the messy program ended as it began. And the lo-o-o-ng in-between wasn’t much better.
Of course the foreigners, (or should I say non-citizens?) got into the self-righteous act. Graciously nominated for best foreign language film, the nominees released a puffy, self-righteous statement two days before the big event, knocking the host country, the U.S., while

condemning “the climate of fanaticism and nationalism” in the U.S. and other countries.

They dedicated the Oscar, no matter which film wins, to those working toward unity.

They directors symbolically rejected the borders that define their category’s nominees, saying, “We believe there is no best country, best gender, best religion or best color. We want this award to stand as a symbol of the unity between nations and the freedom of the arts.”

The statement does not name President Trump but points in his direction, referring to an unhealthy climate stoked by parts of the population, “including leading politicians.” (snip)

On Friday, Farhadi joined with the other directors — Martin Zandvliet, Land of Mine (Denmark); Hannes Holm, A Man Called Ove (Sweden); Maren Ade, Toni Erdmann (Germany) and Marin Butler and Bentley Dean, Tanna (Australia) — to decry division and dedicate themselves to using the power of film to bring people together.

The statement opens with a condemnation of the political mood: “On behalf of all nominees, we would like to express our unanimous and emphatic disapproval of the climate of fanaticism and nationalism we see today in the U.S. and in so many other countries, in parts of the population and, most unfortunately of all, among leading politicians.”

The directors then spoke against division by gender, race, religion and other categories.

Trump to Propose Significant Increase in Defense Spending President won’t push to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare By Nick Timiraos and Kristina Peterson

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s first budget will seek a sizable increase in military funding but won’t make changes to the largest future drivers of government spending: Social Security and Medicare.

Work to prepare the president’s first budget proposal, expected to be released in mid-March, ramped up last week following the Feb. 16 confirmation of Mick Mulvaney as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The White House plans to send federal agencies their proposed budget allocations on Monday, a person familiar with the matter said. Mr. Trump will preview some of the budget priorities in his speech to Congress on Tuesday and release a budget outline in mid-March after gathering information from federal agencies.

The budget outline due next month will include only targets for discretionary spending programs and not any new proposals on taxes or mandatory spending programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, said John Czwartacki, a White House budget office spokesman. The decision to defer the release of part of the budget blueprint is due in part to the delay in Mr. Mulvaney’s confirmation, he said, and those additional proposals will be included in Mr. Trump’s full budget submission later this year.

“It would be premature for us to comment or anyone to report on the specifics of this internal discussion before its publication,” said Mr. Czwartacki.

The president’s budget proposal marks the opening of the monthslong process to set funding levels for the following year. Spending bills originate with Congress and need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles in the Senate.

In his address to Congress, Mr. Trump also is expected to emphasize two of his top legislative priorities: simplifying the tax code and dismantling the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with something else, White House officials said Sunday.

Speaking Sunday on Fox News, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the budget outline won’t include any changes to entitlement spending programs. “We are not touching those now. So don’t expect to see that as part of this budget,” he said.

Mr. Mnuchin, in an interview last week, said an increase in military spending “is an important priority, and I think it’s likely that you’ll see that reflected in the president’s budget.”

By pushing for more military funding and taking entitlement spending changes off the table, the Trump administration also would need to propose funding cuts for nondefense programs to avoid sending deficits much higher.

Mr. Trump, for example, is expected to seek cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency and in other areas of domestic spending.

Congressional Republicans have said they would look to Mr. Trump’s speech for hints about the first budget proposal his administration will send to Capitol Hill, expected in mid-March. CONTINUE AT SITE

And the Academy Award for Insanity Goes to… A historic onstage blunder creates an Oscar moment for the ages by Jason Gay

Well, that was nuts, even for Hollywood.

Let’s be clear: the Oscars were already a fairly ridiculous exercise. A cathedral of glamour and ego, the movie industry’s annual awards conclave is a bloated exercise of hype and self-satisfaction that takes as long to complete as the second year of medical school. This is, of course, why we watch it. An Oscars ceremony that isn’t too long, inane and occasionally infuriating—that’s not a proper Oscars, buddy!

And yet, what happened late Sunday in Los Angeles redefined the already high standard for absurdity at the Academy Awards. An event that once gave us a Rob Lowe duet with Snow White, as well as Telly Savalas,Pat Morita and Dom DeLuise singing “Fugue For Tinhorns” from “Guys & Dolls,” now has its signature moment of insanity: “Bonnie & Clyde” compatriots Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway erroneously awarding Best Picture to “La La Land”— rather than the actual winner, “Moonlight.”

I’ve watched the sequence on replay several times now and, to be honest, it’s way too bizarre to be infuriating. It appeared that Mr. Beatty and Ms. Dunaway were somehow in possession of an incorrect envelope, containing not the Best Picture winner, but the Best Actress, which had just been awarded to Emma Stone of “La La Land.” Opening the crimson envelope, 79-year-old Mr. Beatty seemed baffled, pausing briefly before handing it off to Ms. Dunaway, who announced “La La Land” as the winner.

The most painful thing, really, is that mistake wasn’t recognized immediately. Where was the production team? Already tucking into steaks at Musso & Frank? Even Steve Harvey botching the prize for Miss Universe 2015—the previous gold standard for bungled awards show finales—was faster to repair the damage of a winner incorrectly named.

Instead, the poor “La La Land” producers, cast and crew are allowed to ascend the stage, deliver speeches and experience the weightless feeling of capturing moviemaking’s greatest honor. Think about this for a second: They really thought they had won. Everyone had thought they had won. With 14 nominations, the film was a heavy favorite; a Best Picture win was utterly plausible.

They’re close to wrapping up their acceptance speeches before an anxious-looking production person in headgear starts barreling around the stage, looking like a guy who forgot his iPad on an airplane.

Except he’s Lucy, about to rip the football away from Charlie Brown. CONTINUE AT SITE


The recent uproar by the media, goading President Donald Trump into condemning anti-Semitism in the wake of various threats against Jewish institutions across the United States, has little to do with actual concern for anti-Semitism and everything to do with spreading a toxic false narrative to discredit the president.

Since the Left has learned nothing from the 2016 election — believing we are still operating in a world in which identity politics trumps all other considerations — it has been doing its damnedest to smear the Trump administration as a white nationalist if not outright Nazi regime practically since the day the Trump campaign commenced.

Such baseless accusations are justified at best by a wholly disingenuous conflation of the belief in the primacy of the rule of law, national sovereignty and a jihad-focused national security and foreign policy with racism and bigotry. Such an argument is of a piece with leftist illogic which says that “states rights” is code for “racism” — a code that only progressives have cracked.

Perhaps the cries of “Hitler” based on the president’s policies give the Left too much credit, however. For let us not forget that President George W. Bush championed a fundamentally different agenda from President Trump, and was cast as a Führer reincarnate by progressives as well.

The Left’s supposed newfound concern with anti-Semitism — like its supposed newfound concern with Russia — rings particularly hollow, and not just because of the president’s Jewish family members, friends and senior political appointees and advisors, his pro-Israel and counterjihadist agenda or the glowing words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affirming the president’s philosemitism.

What is remarkable about the Left’s anti-anti-Semitism is that it ignores the entire context of the progressive-Islamist nexus that bolstered the aims of Jew haters worldwide during President Obama’s tenure and beyond.

If the media and the Left more broadly were truly concerned with anti-Semitism, and not merely engaging in the politics of personal destruction, then how to explain their broad support for the Iran Deal which aids, abets and enables the world’s leading state sponsor of jihad dedicated to a Second Holocaust through the annihilation of the Jewish state of Israel?

God help us if Chelsea Clinton runs for office By Maureen Callahan

Last Sunday Chelsea Clinton, usually such a reticent public figure, took to Times Square with her 2-year-old daughter, Charlotte, to march in the Muslim solidarity rally.

“Thank you to all who organized #IAmAMuslimToo today — Charlotte’s 1st protest rally. #NoBanNoWallNoRaids,” she tweeted.

Chelsea’s also promoting her new, co-authored book “Governing Global Health,” with a soft-focus Q&A in the Sunday New York Times and an eight-city tour in April. It’s a more high-profile push than the one for her last, a 2015 YA book called “It’s Your World,” which focused on low-key school visits — exercising, perhaps, an abundance of caution during her mother’s presidential campaign.

This was, for decades, the Clinton strategy: Say as little as possible, avoid unforced errors. While stumping for her mother in 2008, Chelsea took it to new levels, refusing to answer this question: “Do you think your dad would be a good ‘first man’ in the White House?”

“I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately,” Chelsea said. “Even though I think you’re cute.”

The interrogator? A 9-year-old “kid reporter” from Scholastic News.

If Chelsea’s new online persona seems surprising — she’s come alive on Twitter, prolific and politicized — party observers say it shouldn’t be. In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s devastating electoral loss, it seems Chelsea Clinton, historically boring and opinion-free, is mulling a run for high office.

Though her spokesperson denies it, signs point elsewhere.

“The super-aggressive tweets are a way to create a constituency around her,” says veteran political consultant Hank Sheinkopf. “Particularly in New York, where people don’t like Donald Trump.”

‘It bothers the s—t out of me that everyone thinks she’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.’

Last November, Page Six reported that Chelsea was being groomed for a Congressional run. The Clintons “will not give up,” a source said. “Chelsea would be the next extension of the Clinton brand.”

That’s the problem. Putting aside America’s exhaustion with dynastic politics, Chelsea herself, as a potential candidate, comes loaded with Clintonian baggage: the greed, the entitlement, and her mother’s greatest flaw — an inability to connect with common people.

Democrats Elect Tom Perez as Party Chairman Former Labor secretary, backed by party establishment, defeated Keith Ellison from the party’s populist wing By Reid J. Epstein and Janet Hook

ATLANTA—Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, giving the party an establishment leader at a moment when its grass-roots wing is insurgent.

Mr. Perez defeated Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and four other candidates in a race that had few ideological divisions yet illuminated the same rifts in the party that drove the acrimonious 2016 presidential primary between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Perez’s victory capped a drama-filled afternoon. The former Labor secretary fell one vote short of a majority on the first vote for chairman, with Mr. Ellison 13 votes behind. The four second-tier candidates then dropped out of the race. On the second ballot, Mr. Perez won 235 of 435 votes cast.
As Donna Brazile, the outgoing party chairwoman, announced the final results, a group of green-clad Ellison supporters in the meeting hall drowned her out with chants of “not big money, party for the people.”

Mr. Perez played down divisions within the party, proclaiming his “love for the robust discussions that occur in the Democratic Party.” He added: “We need every house call, we need to listen to people, we need to get back to basics and we need to move forward.”

To help heal the division, Mr. Perez in declaring victory immediately appointed Mr. Ellison as the party’s vice chairman. Mr. Ellison practically begged his supporters to remain in the party and back Mr. Perez.

“If you came here supporting me, wearing a green T-shirt,” he said, “I’m asking you to give everything you’ve got to support Chairman Perez.”

President Donald Trump took a shot at Mr. Perez in a tweet about the Democratic vote. “Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!”

Mr. Perez tweeted in return: “Call me Tom. And don’t get too happy. @keithellison and I, and Democrats united across the country, will be your worst nightmare.”

Trump’s Immigration Approach Is Less Draconian than Obama’s His proposed alien removals follow his predecessor’s legacy of mass deportations. By Deroy Murdock

If President Donald J. Trump’s critics are correct, he is arranging for illegal aliens — especially those with criminal convictions — something nearly as excruciating as the Bataan Death March.

“I.C.E. MEN COMETH,” warned the front page of Wednesday’s New York Daily News.

“New immigration guidelines are about cruelty, not safety,” the San Francisco Chronicle wept.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Joanne Lin told the Associated Press that Trump’s immigration enforcement stance is one in which “due process, human decency, and common sense are treated as inconvenient obstacles on the path to mass deportations.”

But where were these trembling voices during the Obama years?

An official report from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) suggests that Trump will struggle to match the pace at which Obama booted immigrants.

According to a document titled “FY 2016 ICE Immigration Removals,” the federal government deported 2,749,706 aliens between fiscal years 2009 and 2016 — on Obama’s watch. This averaged 343,713 deportees annually.

In fiscal year 2016 alone, Obama’s ICE kicked out 240,255 aliens, including 136,669 criminal convicts. However, the report says, “101,586 aliens removed . . . had no criminal conviction.” Furthermore, “the leading countries of origin for removals were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.” Obama’s disproportionately Hispanic deportees included 2,057 “suspected or confirmed gang members.”

“ICE also continues to focus on criminal aliens,” the report explains, “as 58 percent of overall ICE removals, including 92 percent of ICE removals initiated in the interior of the country, were of convicted criminals.” This echoes Trump’s promise to banish alien lawbreakers before others. “Our enforcement priorities will include removing criminals, gang members, security threats,” Trump said August 31.

Perhaps Trump echoes Obama.

America has no monopoly on deportation. Governments practice this basic function worldwide, even in countries that make American liberals swoon with social-justice fervor.

Take Mexico, a nation allegedly victimized by Trump and other gringos. It deported some 173,000 Central Americans in 2015, 70 percent more than in 2014, according to Mexico’s National Migration Institute. Why? “The government came under intense pressure from the U.S last year [2013] to crack down on migrants after waves of children from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala began arriving at the U.S.–Mexico border,” the Los Angeles Times observed.

Team Obama applied that pressure, and Mexican officials jumped.

Some 5,000 federales rolled into Chiapas, on the Guatemalan frontier. They opened border checkpoints, arrested migrants, and blocked them from a northbound train nicknamed “The Beast.”