Cop-Hating Antifa Terrorist Caught With Explosives
Planned to carry out terror attack
Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - July 19, 2018
A 43-year-old cop-hating Antifa extremist was arrested after authorities discovered bomb making materials and chemicals in the man’s home indicating that he was planning to carry out a terror attack.
Authorities connected Mark Einerwold to three separate burglaries in the Tea and Dell Rapids areas of South Dakota and raided his home on Tuesday afternoon.
“While serving the search warrant, detectives found what they say were bomb making materials and chemicals,” reports KDLT.
“Authorities say they found multiple explosive devices as well as aluminum nitrate and aluminum powder, which authorities say have no use other than for an explosive device.”
Along with firearms and a homemade firearms silence, cops also uncovered “multiple items related to Antifa,” in addition to other material “indicating an extreme hatred for law enforcement and government.”
“We don’t know what his intentions were, or what they were. But it’s pretty safe to say, we stopped something from happening,” said Minnehaha County Sheriff’s Captain Jason Gearman, suggesting that Einerwold was planning to carry out a terror attack.
The story underscores the fact that Antifa is a violent terrorist organization and should be treated that way.
The group’s activity have been formally classified by the Department of Homeland Security as “domestic terrorism”.
As Politico reports, “By April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets.” According to a senior state law enforcement official, “A whole bunch of them” have been deemed dangerous enough to be placed on U.S. terrorism watch lists.”
The report also noted how separate FBI and DHS reports confirmed that they were monitoring “conduct deemed potentially suspicious and indicative of terrorist activity” by Antifa groups.
As we reported in July last year, the Department of Homeland Security in New Jersey officially listed Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization on its website.
A leaked FBI field report also documented how explosives linked to Antifa were found on college campuses.
FBI field report: Antifa has improvised explosives stored on college campuses.
Members of Antifa have met with Islamic terrorists to obtain weapons & training.
This is why the DHS now lists Antifa as a terror group. pic.twitter.com/TkbL3BRCgu
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 30, 2017
Earlier this year, German authorities also uncovered, “an Antifa-linked hoard of chemicals, high-explosives, and a mobile bomb factory.”
Muslim convert and would-be domestic terrorist Everitt Aaron Jameson, who planned to carry out a Christmas Day massacre on Pier 39 in San Francisco, was also a supporter of Antifa.
The conclusion is clear; Anyone who publicly expresses support for Antifa, which innumerable people on the left have repeatedly, is openly supporting a terrorist organization.
After Trump leaves office, this is the kind of trash that will seize control of the country.
Dems Slam Ocasio-Cortez: Her Socialist Vision ‘Would Bankrupt The Country’
Establishment libs can’t stomach socialist candidate ahead of midterms
Jamie White | Infowars.com - July 18, 2018
Several Democrats are worried far-left New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is damaging their party with her radical socialist platform.
Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, urged Democrats in a Wall Street Journal op-ed to vote for Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), who suffered a stunning loss to Ocasio-Cortez in last month’s primary and so will appear on the ballot of the Working Families Party.
“Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform, like hers, is more Socialist than Democratic,” he wrote on Tuesday.
“Her dreams of new federal spending would bankrupt the country or require very large tax increases, including on the working class,” he continued.
“Her approach foresees government ownership of many private companies, which would decimate the economy and put millions out of work.”
Several other Democrats echoed Lieberman’s sentiment, with some asserting her attacks against the more moderate faction of the Democrat Party was not a wise strategy.
“She’s carrying on and she ain’t gonna make friends that way,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) told The Hill. “Joe conceded, wished her well, said he would support her…so she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.”
“She’s not asking my advice,” he added, “[but] I would do it differently, rather than make enemies of people.”
If Ocasio-Cortez wants to be successful in Congress, she needs to learn to forge working relationships with fellow Democrats, even if they’re not as far left, said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.).
“Meteors fizz out,” Hastings said. “What she will learn in this institution is that it’s glacial to begin with, and therefore no matter how far you rise, that’s just how far you will ultimately get your comeuppance.”
“You come up here and you’re going to be buddy-buddy with all the folks or you’re going to make them do certain things? Ain’t happening, OK?” he added.
Ocasio-Cortez further highlighted her radical far-left views this week after calling for the “occupation” of airports, border crossings, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) offices across the country.
Meanwhile, Democrats refused to vote on their own “Abolish ICE” bill this week over fears the optics would hurt their midterm chances.
Congressmen: Lisa Page Admits Texts With Strzok ‘Mean Exactly What They Say’
Obvious political bias in messages between FBI anti-Trump lovers
Infowars.com - July 18, 2018
Anti-Trump FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified the biased text messages between her and FBI agent Peter Strzok “mean exactly what they say,” according to Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas).
“In many cases she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks we’ve all misinterpreted his own words on any message that might be negative,” Ratcliffe, who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said on Monday.
Rep. John Ratcliffe reveals Lisa Page admitted her text messages with Peter Strzok “mean exactly what they say,” contrary to Strzok’s testimony pic.twitter.com/Ne21aWa8HJ
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) July 17, 2018
Ratcliffe also revealed the revelations on “Sunday Morning Futures,” saying there were “significant differences” between Page’s testimony and Strzok’s.
“I can tell you there are significant differences in her testimony from Agent Strzok as it relates to these text messages, what she thought some of them meant, and she gave us new information that he either wouldn’t or couldn’t that confirm some of the concerns that we have about these investigations and the people involved in running them,” he told host Maria Bartiromo.
When I questioned Lisa Page on Friday about the anti-Trump text messages that were sent between herself and Peter Strzok, there were significant differences in her testimony and Strzok’s as it relates to what she thought some of these text messages meant. pic.twitter.com/H73LfRFzUc
— John Ratcliffe (@RepRatcliffe) July 16, 2018
Page will also be a good witness going forward due to her candor and credibility, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX).
“She has given us more insights to who was involved in what,” Gohmert told Fox News Tuesday.
“She’s a more contrite person. But make no mistake … she’s a Democrat. She wanted Hillary to win and she did not want Trump to win, and that’s been obvious.”
Dem Congressman Pressures Facebook to Ban Infowars During Live Hearing
Demands to know “how many strikes” it would take to bring Infowars page down
Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - July 17, 2018
Democratic Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL) pressured Facebook to ban Infowars during a hearing into social media censorship today on Capitol Hill.
During the House Judiciary Committee inquiry into social media bias, Deutch attempted to lobby Facebook’s Monika Bickert, Head of Global Policy Management, into banning Infowars content.
“You recently decided not to ban Infowars, can you explain that decision?” asked Deutch, who had spent the previous few minutes demanding to know why content that challenges mainstream narratives about news events is allowed on YouTube.
Bickert responded by saying that content which violated the company’s policies was removed and that “at a certain point, we would also remove the page or the group at issue.”
Deutch then demanded to know, “how many strikes” it would take to have Infowars removed from Facebook.
Bickert said Facebook would continue to monitor and remove content from the Infowars page and that, “If they posted sufficient content that it violated our threshold, the page would come down.”
This follows attempts last week by CNN’s senior media reporter Oliver Darcy to lobby Facebook to ban Infowars.
This is not the first time that censoring Infowars has cropped up as a topic of conversation during a live Congressional hearing.
During a November 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing on “Russian interference,” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) demanded to know why an Infowars story about New York Mayor Mike De Blasio ignoring warnings about radicalization of terrorists in mosques was appearing at the top of Twitter’s trending hashtag page.
Twitter General Counsel Sean Edgett assured Quigley that actions were being taken to make sure it wouldn’t happen again.
As we reported yesterday, there is a full on assault to downrank and censor Infowars and other conservative and pro-Trump media outlets in anticipation of the upcoming mid-term elections.
By lobbying Big Tech to silence independent voices, the left hopes they can stop the kind of momentum and reach that helped Donald Trump win the White House.
The relevant section from today’s hearing can be viewed at 1:47.57 in the video below.
How Big Tech Censors Conservatives on Social Media
A new roadmap reveals all the censorship techniques – and how they all work together to stop free speech
Kit Daniels | Infowars.com - July 16, 2018
Censorship of conservative and libertarian speech from the Internet is real – and how it works exactly is outlined in a new, roadmap report intended for DC policymakers.
The easily readable report, entitled The Censorship Master Plan Decoded, is intended for the average American to understand how online censorship works and how the various methods of suppression work together to clamp down on free speech throughout the Internet.
It begins with a “triple threat” of institutions:
1) Corporate, legacy media
2) Left-leaning, “objective” fact-checkers and
3) Social media sites
Which attack free speech on three different fronts:
1) By fueling a “lynch mob” mentality in the public to kill “triggering” political speech,
2) By “fact checking” conservative viewpoints, judging them “fake news” while, in contrast, claiming liberal – or simply establishment – viewpoints are “factually true,” which ultimately leads to
3) “Shadow” banning – or outright removing – conservatives (including libertarians) from social media.
“These three fronts conspire to attack, defame and deplatform originators of certain types of speech (such as conservative speech, pro-Trump speech, natural health speech, pro-cannabis legalization speech, etc.,” the report’s author, Mike Adams, stated. “Thus, we are now faced with a kind of perfect storm in America – a ‘free speech apocalypse’ – where all the institutions that once called for protections of the freedom of expression are now actively conspiring to exterminate it.”
“This coordinated attack on free speech is now taking place in plain view.”
And, if left unchallenged, it will lead to a future Internet in which only one “official” opinion is allowed for each topic of discussion; a corporate monopoly will replace the Internet’s free marketplace of ideas.
No debate nor dissenting views will be tolerated.
Their overall goal is to have a “controlled” Internet in which a handful of media sites control the majority of the web traffic – and the speech allowed.
In other words, this version of the Internet is not unlike TV in the 1960s in which a handful of news outlets controlled the programming offered to the public who had no real influence in the discourse.
There are legislative solutions, however, which are presented in Part Six of the report.
“Read this document in full,” Adams added. “Forward it to your representatives in Washington D.C.”
“Urge lawmakers and our president to act on this now, or we will lose not just our freedom to speak, but our right to meaningfully participate in the dominant public space platforms through which social and professional interactions now take place.”
Controlled hope goes along way. Expecially when it is pointing in the direction of making things better. The one world's are not going to go away. False hope controls tbough's who think someone in government will make things right and the Republic will be restored .
... Now that crude prices are rising again, the political and economic pressures are easing on oil exporters as revenues, in most cases, begin to surge. But there is one glaring exception, one country that relies on oil exports for essentially all its export revenue and whose economy is continuing its downward spiral despite the sharp rise in oil prices: Venezuela.
The simplest way to gauge the impact of oil price fluctuations on the economy and the potential effect on policy is to look at an exporter’s fiscal break-even price. The break-even price is the level at which oil prices need to sell in order to allow an exporter to meet government spending and produce a balanced budget. When crude prices fall below break-even, budget deficits start to balloon, eroding reserves and threatening economic stability. Depending on the availability of other exports and the size of reserves, large gaps between break-even and market prices can force a government to cut spending, raise taxes and borrow heavily. It can squeeze an economy well beyond the oil industry.
The most dramatic response to the drop in global oil prices came in Saudi Arabia, where an ambitious and daring crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, launched revolutionary reforms with an eye toward, among other things, reducing the country’s overreliance on oil. While the success of many of his reform plans remains unclear, the crown prince’s efforts to lower Saudi Arabia’s break-even price has been little short of spectacular. Before prices fell, Saudi Arabia’s break-even price was $105.70 per barrel. The government has since slashed expenditures by about one-fifth, cutting subsidies and other expenses, and raising taxes. The break-even level now stands at $74.40, and a recent study by a Japanese bank predicts it will reach $55 a barrel by 2021, giving the kingdom ample room to finance Crown Prince Mohammed’s goal of diversifying the economy.
Other Gulf states have also moved to narrow the gap, introducing a value-added tax, lowering subsidy payments and promoting new industries. Now, with oil prices climbing, these petroleum producers are set to reap a sharp rise in revenues against a lowered level of national expenditures.
The contrast with Venezuela could not be starker. Despite the rise in prices, Venezuela, holder of the world’s largest known oil reserves, is seeing its oil income continue to plummet, along with the rest of its economy.
Trump Says Migration Has Changed Europe’s ‘Fabric,’ As UN Chief Calls It a ‘Positive Global Phenomenon’
By Patrick Goodenough | July 13, 2018
(CNSNews.com) – Allowing “millions and millions” of migrants to enter Europe has changed its “fabric,” President Trump said Thursday, telling a mass-circulation British tabloid newspaper that unless the Europeans “act very quickly, it’s never going to be what it was, and I don’t mean that in a positive way.”
“I think you are losing your culture,” Trump told The Sun in comments published on the day he arrived in Britain on his first presidential visit. “Look around. You go through certain areas that didn’t exist ten or 15 years ago.”
Before leaving Brussels for London, the president told a press conference he had given his European counterparts at the NATO summit a warning on immigration.
“I made a point today – I said, you’ve got to stop. You’re ruining your – you’re going to have a lot of problems,” he said. “You see what’s going on throughout the world with immigration.”
Trump argued that the immigration issue was partly responsible for his election, for the recent election outcome in Italy, and for the British vote in 2016 to leave the European Union.
“I told them today, the E.U., the European Union, better be very careful, because immigration is taking over Europe, and they better be very, very careful,” he said. “And I said that loud and clear.”
Trump’s remarks on immigration came on the day U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, speaking to reporters in New York, called migration “a positive global phenomenon” and hailed the U.N. General Assembly’s expected agreement Friday on a “global compact” on migration.
The non-binding agreement is set to be formally adopted at a U.N. conference in Morocco in December, a year after the Trump administration withdrew from the initiative. Then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said at the time the U.S. “simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.”
Two “global compacts” in the works, one focusing on migration and the other on refugees, are the outcome of a 2016 U.N. summit’s consensus declaration that expressed countries’ political will to protect the rights of refugees and migrants and share the responsibility for doing so.
When the administration withdrew from the process, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said that declaration “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration’s immigration principles.”
In his press conference remarks on Thursday, Guterres acknowledged that “countries have the right and even the responsibility to determine their own migration policies, and to responsibly manage their borders.”
“But they must do so in full respect for human rights,” he added.
“Migration is a positive global phenomenon,” Guterres said. “Many aging developed countries need migrants to fill crucial gaps in labor markets. Climate change and other factors, including simple human aspiration, will continue to lead people to seek opportunity far from their homes.”
Shifting the focus from migrants to refugees, Guterres said the vast majority of refugees around the world were being hosted in developing countries which themselves face constraints.
“This responsibility must be shared globally,” he said, bemoaning the fact that refugees and migrants were often “demonized and attacked.”
Before becoming secretary-general, Guterres served at the U.N. high commissioner for refugees.
In response to a question, Guterres said he hoped the U.S. would rejoin the global compact process.
“Let’s not forget that United States is in itself a country of immigration,” he said.
According to International Organization for Migration (IOM) data, there were 257.7 million migrants around the world in 2017, with the United States accounting for the largest number by far, at 49.8 million, or 15.3 percent of the total U.S. population.
The United States’ migrant total has risen to 49.8 million from 44.2 million in 2010, 34.8 million in 2000 and 23.3 million in 1990.
In Europe (a region which in the IOM data includes Russia), there were 77.9 million migrants in 2017, with Germany accounting for the largest number, at 12.2 million, or 14.8 percent of the total German population.
Europe’s migrant total has risen to 77.9 million from 70.7 million in 2010, 56.3 million in 2000 and 49.2 million in 1990.
Globally, the number of migrants has risen to 257.7 million last year, from 220 million in 2010, 172.6 million in 2000 and 152.5 million in 1990.
When it comes to refugees, even with the sharp drop in admissions under the Trump administration the United States still admitted more refugees than any other single country last year.
A total of 33,368 refugees were resettled in the U.S. in calendar year 2017, out of a total 103,000 resettled worldwide, according to State Department and UNHCR figures.
By comparison, Canada resettled 27,000 (figures are rounded), Australia 15,000, Britain 6,000, Germany 3,000 and France 3,000.
If any wish to promote ism idealogy in any form. That is there right. So long as they do it freely. Encourage all to speak openly about what they want. It makes it easy to see what they stand for. Freedom with rights and self responsibility or no rights with no responsibility. No hesitation when confronted with thoughs who want and promote ism.
There is now a petition to pardon everyone else at "Bunkerville," You can sign the petition here. They need 100,000 signatures to get a response from the White House. Time is short, they need the signatures bu August 9.
What does it take for all americans. To grasp th consept, of the rule of law has been replaced with rule of sword? The Republic has been replaced by corporate oylarcy known as a democracy. The bill of rights only applys when it benefits the democrocy. Will it take for everything that America stands for to be destroyed before ,enough is enough?
The Internet Gulag: Demonetization, Demonization, and Deletion
James Wesley Rawles July 10, 2018
A wave of Internet censorship is sweeping the globe. This censorship is no longer just the nefarious work of totalitarian nations. Many western nations are experiencing their own brand of censorship that is being promulgated by ostensibly “private” companies. (Although many of these are near monopoly utilities that could be classified as public accommodations.) The War on Guns
Dozens of conservative, pro-gun videobloggers and news outlets have been demonetized by YouTube in the past two years. By flagging these sites as “not family friendly”, viewers must now toggle “Restricted Mode: Off” and even when they do, advertisements are no longer displayed. This has happened to gun vloggers like Hickok45, Demolition Ranch, and many others. And even some vloggers who only occasionally mention guns (such as Wranglerstar) have also been intermittently blacklisted. This effectively zeros their advertising revenue. The goal of YouTube liberal, globalist, and anti-gun management is clear: They want to drive these sites out of business by cutting them off from their revenue stream.
Meanwhile, Google is deliberately “de-listing” conservative sites from showing up on the first page of results in Google searches. Going far beyond just a deniable search engine “algorithm glitch”, Google has been caught hiring outside contracting firms to manipulate data, deliberately assigning “low to medium” or “poor to low” reliability to numerous news outlets including InfoWars and Natural News. They have done the same to whistleblowing sites like Wikileaks. By pushing down their search engine relevance, Google is marginalizing these sites. Google’s goal is clear: They want to remove these sites from the public eye.
Search Engine Shenanigans
Google was also caught red-handed during the 2016 presidential election cycle in manipulating the “auto fill” feature of their search engine window in completing search phrases that involved the name Hillary Clinton. This was well documented by Fortune magazine.
Concurrently, Twitter has “shadow banned” some users.
Facebook has also been caught systematically censoring posts.
Now, more than ever before, Facebook is using artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to flag and delete “offensive” content. Not surprisingly, it is conservative and pro-national sovereignty sites that seem to be flagged most often.
The work of the AI algorithms often has tragi-comic results. Most recently, a blogger posted the Declaration of Independence to his Facebook page, in several installments, in honor of Independence Day. One portion of the Declaration was quickly flagged as “hate speech” by Facebook’s AI, and automagically deleted. Facebook administrators later apologized and restored the post. But this illustrates the just how arbitrary the AI juggernaut can be.
To make matters even worse, two years ago Amazon.com slashed the commissions for all of their “Amazon Associates” by an average of 45%. This has made it difficult for many bloggers to cover their costs.
The end result of these many maneuverings has been to marginalize and demonetize web sites, blogs, and vlogs of those who are deemed “politically incorrect.” By suppressing and manipulating search engine results, these sites are not just made unprofitable, they also disappear from public view. This is blatant censorship and an outright stifling of free public discourse.
Sequence of Events
Through the use of AI and paid opinion molders, the general direction and sequence of 21st Century Internet censorship appears to be:
Identifying politically incorrect bloggers and vloggers. Targeting those who are the most outspoken. Marginalization—through deliberate manipulation of search engine results. By selectively editing content, leftist Wikipedia cabals are skewing content and even outright deleting it. The “James Wesley Rawles” Wikipedia page just barely survived multiple deletion campaigns as “Non-notable.” Some of these “Articles for Deletion” (AfD) attempts occurred after three of my books were on the New York Times Bestsellers List. (Since when is a bestseller not notable?) Reducing revenue to remove any incentive to continue blogging or vlogging. Demonization through miscategorization into “hate” categories. This has included attempts to fabricate conspiratorial relationships through Guilt by Association, or even –- as I have personally experienced — Guilt by Disassociation. I have been targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in a smear campaign. Repeatedly flagging conservative blogs, vlogs, and web sites. This is done by placing “hits” or “strikes” on sites that are in any way deemed offensive. Full Deletion of websites. Once a sufficient number of strikes have been tallied, content is removed or made invisible. This is not just piecemeal deletion of individual posts, videos, or web pages but rather wholesale deletion of entire sites. Once deleted these sites and their authors are de-ranked or even completely deleted from search engine results. Poof! Down the Memory Hole.
In the face of this revisionism, censorship, and full-on site deletion, those who have been targeted have begun to fight back. We recognize that as private firms, companies like Facebook and Google can operate their businesses as they see fit. (The freedom of association also implies the freedom of disassociation. The phrase “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” still applies.) So, rather than by filing fruitless lawsuits, we have chosen to find alternative outlets and methodologies. These include:
Establishing fully independent web domains that are not tied to proprietary commercial services such as Blogger or YouTube. Employing alternative services for high bandwidth video content. These presently are typified by Full30.com and BitChute.com. Widely cross-posting content. Setting up offshore mirror websites. Encouraging readers to bookmark websites, so that people will continue to visit sites even after they have been expunged by search engines. Asking sites to maintain prominent link lists and blogrolls, where content with the same political perspective is apparent. Distributing blog archives on DVD and USB memory sticks. Encouraging readers to print out key posts and maintain thei rown hard copy archives. Preparing to distribute leaflets, printed newsletters, or e-mailed newsletters, in the event that censorship gets even more severe Providing press credentials to all adult citizens. (We have done so though our sister site, CFAPA.org.) Making plans and setting up resources to physically move blogging staff off shore, if it becomes necessary.
All in all, Internet censorship is becoming a serious threat to the free exchange of ideas and to individual liberty. We need to defend the First Amendment rights of everyone — even those whom we politically or philosophically oppose. As Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately.”
President about to drop the hammer on former FBI Director for burying Saudi involvement in attacks
Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - July 3, 2018
President Trump may be about to drop the hammer on Robert Mueller by exposing his role in helping to cover-up Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11.
Mueller has been involved in the systematic cover-up of the true circumstances behind 9/11 since day one, which is why he has been a constant roadblock to victim’s families who are attempting to seek compensation from Saudi Arabia for their role in the attacks.
During an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show last night, attorney for 9/11 victim’s families Jim Kreindler said that rush to war with Iraq meant that the Saudi connection to 9/11 needed to be buried and Mueller was instrumental in making this happen.
This is why the Bush administration allowed prominent Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, to leave the country even as flights were grounded nationwide.
He underscored how George W. Bush was “good friends with the Saudi ambassador, who….gave $25,000 to one of the government agents who were helping Hosni and Mihdhar, the two terrorists.”
“There was this huge body of evidence that Saudi government officials prepared for the hijackers’ arrival, helped them, got them money, English lessons, safe houses and apartments, and provided the aid without which it would have been impossible, according to the FBI agents who were working the case, for the terrorists to succeed,” said Kreindler.
The attorney stressed that instead of investigating this story, Mueller covered it up.
“Interrogations were shut down, documents have been kept secret,” said Kreindler, adding that the cover-up continued under Obama and then FBI Director James Comey.
9/11 families are now demanding that the documents related to the cover-up, overseen by Mueller, be immediately declassified by President Trump. Amnesty for all FBI agents who were ordered to oversee the cover-up but can now blow the whistle on Mueller is also being considered.
“There is no reason for thousands of documents that reveal both the Saudi role and our own government’s cover-up for 17 years to be kept secret,” said Kreindler.
Kathy Owens, who lost her husband on 9/11, said that as head of the FBI at the time, Mueller “covered up and stifled the investigation into who was responsible for supporting the hijackers,” and that this would be revealed in documents that are “still being unnecessarily classified.”
As the Washington Examiner reported, former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time, said Mueller directly intervened to bury any Saudi connection.
“Graham stated that Mueller personally intervened to cut off further inquiry regarding Saudi assistance to the hijackers in California. In an interview with Harper’s from October 2017, Graham stated that Mueller made a series of objections to having terrorist specialist and former FBI lawyer Michael Jacobson visit San Diego to see if there was a possible Saudi connection to the hijackers. When Jacobson discovered that the hijackers were close to an FBI informant named Abdussattar Shaikh, he demanded to speak to him — but Mueller refused and moved Shaikh to an undisclosed location “for his safety.”
As head of the 400 FBI agent team in L.A. investigating the attacks, former FBI agent Stephen K. Moore also confirmed Saudi complicity in 9/11.
Evidence submitted in a lawsuit against the Saudi government reveals that its embassy in Washington may have funded a “dry run” for the hijackings which involved two Saudi nationals living undercover in the U.S. as students who flew from Phoenix to Washington to test cockpit security.
“The court filing provides new details that paint “a pattern of both financial and operational support” for the 9/11 conspiracy from official Saudi sources,” reported the New York Post.
Iran threatens to shut down the Gulf of Hormuz. This would hurt our "allies," the Saudis. But the U.S. could well come out ahead, helping our growing oil exports. Frankly, it would hurt the Iranians more than it would hurt us. Maybe our Navy, instead of fighting to keep it open, should be working to keep it closed.
Iranian military officials are threatening to enact a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane for oil in the Persian Gulf, if the United States follows through with efforts to block all of Iran's oil exports under a rash of new economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic, according to regional reports.
Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, warned the Trump administration to not "make any stupid move to halt Iran's oil export," vowing that if the U.S. administration follows through with this threat, Iranian forces will shut down the Strait of Hormuz for all nations, a move that could cripple the regional flow of crude oil products.
"We stand ready to put in action President Hassan Rouhani's latest position that if Tehran were not able to export its crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz, no other country would be able to do so," Jafari was quoted as saying in Iran's state-controlled press.
The plan to shut down the critical shipping lane is said to be endorsed by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who, along with other top Iranian officials, has been working on contingency plans to combat U.S. economic sanctions on Tehran following President Donald Trump's decision to walk away from the nuclear agreement.
Meanwhile, Iran's representative to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, blamed Trump for rising oil prices, claiming that the president's rhetoric could force oil prices to rise to $100 per barrel.
The RTO Course is coming to Ravalli County Fairgrounds in Hamilton, Montana. There’s three back to back dates to take advantage of:
8-9 September 15-16 September Advanced Class: 13-14 September
Class cost is $300 in advance, $350 at the door. The advance cost requires a $50 deposit sent before 15 August:
610 N. 1st St., Ste. 5-209 Hamilton, MT 59840 Make sure you include a good email address and the class date in the deposit (and a heads up to my inbox) so we can send you a confirmation.
The last NC dates for 2018:
14-15 July 11-12 August First Line Course: 29-30 September 13-14 October Advanced Class: 27-28 October
A description of the the RTO and First Line Courses can be found here. The Advanced Course picks up where the RTO Basic Course leaves off, with training focused on:
Advanced SOI/CEOI Planning Planning & Coordinating Transmitting Sites/Directional Transmitting Uses of Resistors and Constructing Directional Wire Antennas Data Bursts Advanced HF techniques Basic Signals Mapping and Communications Intelligence
Barring any more private training dates, this is it for 2018. There *may* be a couple one day workshops added at a reduced cost, focusing on observation skills and intermediate range (0-500) marksmanship, mission planning, defensive considerations and coordinating teams in the field, and basic signals collection/intelligence. Feel free to contact me for more details.
Again, this is it for 2018. Things appear to be ramping up as far as rhetoric and action goes from an increasingly unhinged Left. What are you doing today to be better tomorrow?
Mexicans elected a populist president yesterday. Andrés Manuel López Obrador—nicknamed "AMLO"—defeated the country's two major parties with promises to clean up corruption and to impose greater government control over the economy, to stop what he sees as the fleecing of Mexico's domestic interests by free trade agreements. He is short on concrete policy proposals and has shown authoritarian tendencies.
Despite all that, López Obrador is unlikely to be a close friend to U.S. President Donald Trump. About the only thing they might agree on is blowing up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Indeed, López Obrador published a book last year, titled Oye, Trump! ("Listen Up, Trump!"), that reprints a series of speeches he gave to Spanish-speaking communities in the United States after Trump's 2016 election. He's been sharply critical of Trump's hardline stance on immigration, and he has condemned the much-ballyhooed plans for a stronger border wall, promising supporters in a speech last week that Mexico will "never be the piñata of any foreign government."
But almost everyone has something negative to say about Trump. More worrying are the similarities between López Obrador and Hugo Chavez, who ruled Venezuela from 1999 through 2013 and pushed the once-prosperous nation onto the path of its current socialist nightmare.
López Obrador has called for the nationalization of Mexico's oil industries (although he has contradicted himself on that claim) and has promised to impose price controls on gasoline. Investment banks such as Citigroup have warned that his election means uncertainty in "monetary, fiscal, and commercial policy."
"Nobody knows exactly what to expect from an AMLO administration. His proposals are a collection of notions with few details and plenty of contradictions," write Juan Carlos Hidalgo and Ian Vasquez, two Latin America policy experts at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Beyond concerns over López Obrador's plan to reshape Mexico's energy industries, they point to his call for agricultural self-sufficiency. While that message has played well with farmers across Mexico, achieving that goal would likely require tearing up NAFTA and would increase the cost of living for many Mexicans.
"With protectionists at the helm in its two biggest member states, NAFTA could well collapse," The Economist foreshadows.
We will soon find out. López Obrador, a former mayor of Mexico City who had ran two unsuccessful campaigns for president in 2006 and 2012, won easily on Sunday. Running for a third party that he founded, López Obrador finished more than 10 percentage points ahead of the candidates from Mexico's two largest parties, the National Action Party and the Institutional Revolutionary Party—that have shared power in Mexico since the country became a full-fledged multi-party democracy in 2000.
It's not much of a surprise that a populist message would succeed in Mexico. The country is famous for its high levels of political corruption, and it has weak democratic institutions. It's hard to overstate how badly the current crop of cronies have handled Mexico. Transparency International ranks Mexico 95th out of 167 countries for corruption—23 spots behind El Salvador and 39 spots behind Cuba.
"Overcharges by the country's telecommunications monopoly are estimated to cost 2 percent of Mexico's total economic output. That monopoly earns profits almost double those of its U.S. and Canadian counterparts," David Frum wrote in a 2016 piece for The Atlantic. "Unsurprisingly, the monopoly's owner, Carlos Slim, ranks among the world's richest men."
Elba Esther Gordillo, the "president for life" of Mexico's national teachers' union, was busted in 2013 for spending the equivalent of $2.1 million in public funds at a Neiman Marcus store in San Diego, California, and using other union funds on plastic surgery. The wife of Mexico's outgoing—and deeply unpopular—current president was busted in 2016 for living in a condo owned by a company that contracts with her husband's government. The reporter who broke that story quickly lost her job.
As elsewhere in America and Europe, Mexico's turn toward a populist president with half-formed economic ideas is at least partially the fault of previous leaders, who have allowed corruption to take root and have not made a compelling political case for free trade, despite all the good it has done. This isn't the first time that voters, feeling like they want to burn everything down, have turned to a politician like López Obrador.
"No one can blame Mexicans for being under the impression that they have little to lose by voting for a firebrand populist," write Hidalgo and Vasquez. "But this is a miscalculation that we have seen in other Latin American nations, and one that has terrible long-term consequences."
A free market anarchist would at least partially agree - of course migration is about economics and finance. This is not something new. Businesses move to where labor costs are low, and labor moves to where labor is valued higher. I would disagree that there is some shadowy, influential lobby that is orchestrating all of this, it is simply a law of economics.
The truth is, everyone gains from this migration. America and Europe gets some much-needed cheap labor. Africa, Mexico, and Central America are advancing economically (at least until they get more socialists in power). Everyone wins. But you will never convince Trump of that.
The Origin Of State Sponsored Propaganda AKA Fake News?
By: Caravan to Midnight
Written by: John B Wells
Thursday, June 21, 2018 John B finds The Origin Of State Sponsored Propaganda AKA “Fake News”
The term “fake news” has become used in every circle of social media. Just in the last week, there were people on social media circulating a letter from Vector Marketing, a multi-level marketing company offering teens and college students twenty dollars per sales appointment booked. The Internet proclaimed the letters were an attempt to rope young students into sex slavery. As I saw the posts come across my feed, I got into it, realized it was rubbish and felt a need to set the record straight. Soon the thread stopped, and a few people admitted they were duped. What would have happened if the thread had grown? “Fake news” is dangerous, but is it also a way to confuse and deceive the American people intentionally?
Recently, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 5,035 adults over 18 years of age in the United States, and found that only a quarter of them could identify factual statements over opinions. That means that most of us are being duped by “fake news” and we don’t even know it. How did this happen?
Many point to 2016 and specifically to Section 1287 of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2017 written in 2016. This section established the Global Engagement Center, the purpose of which is to “…lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests.” With such vague wording that could mean that any information the leadership of the country finds undermining to their authority could be considered propaganda and thus they could counter any “propaganda” they wish.
Also, Section 1288 of the same act, allowed for modification of the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994.
The International Broadcasting Act of 1994 states, “It is the policy of the United States to promote the right of freedom of opinion and expression; including the freedom “to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,” in accordance with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
The most interesting thing about the International Broadcasting Act of 1994 is who is in charge of the Board of Governors that supervise, allocate, and control what information is shared with the media.
That power belongs to the Executive Branch or in other words, The President of The United States. Under the Act, the President of The United States appoints the people assigned to the Board of Governors, and four of those can be part of the ruling party. The President picks the members and the members affect information that is supplied to other countries. The Board is composed of nine members with expertise in the fields of mass communications, broadcast media, or international affairs. Eight members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The ninth, the Secretary of State, serves ex officio. Why would the President need such a group?
This means a federally funded watchdog group, has now been placed under the control of the President of the United States by then president Bill Clinton in 1994. I see the building blocks of socialism as the leftists were steadily taking federal control over ALL information.
Furthermore, if you view the Broadcasting Board of Governors website, you may conclude that its activities are confined to Voice Of America, Office Of Cuban Broadcasting, Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. But as one practical example; the Soviet Union is gone, so which repressed people is Radio Free Europe broadcasting to? And why are people in Africa and Western Europe, areas not served by BBG according to their website, being inundated with reports of how stupid and racist President Trump and his supporters are? Why does the so-called ‘narrative’ not differ from that content presented by American Network television outlets?
The answer is- BBG pervades the entire spectrum of information released by the Media both outside and inside the United States. Also note that The President’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2019, sent to Congress on February 12, 2018, includes $661.1 million for the BBG. So effectively we the tax payers are financing our own brainwashing and mind-control.
How did it happen? The Obama administration made this change in Section 1288, SEC 310, of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2017 that allows for the Board to use their power to also “counter state-sponsored propaganda which undermines the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and its allies;” Another vague statement – Who decides what constitutes “state sponsored propaganda” – these few board members controlled by the Whitehouse? Now, this board not only controls information flow within the territory of the United States but also all international information flow as well as decide what is propaganda or not.
Why would this need to be changed? Because this is the point of origin for what has become known as “fake news." The Act was passed by Congress on November 30, 2016, less than 30 days after the election, and signed by President Obama on December 23, 2016, on his way out of the White House.
The year after the Presidential election did not go the way of the Democratic Party more fake stories were being reported than ever before. Coincidence? Most of the stories were targeting conservatives and Republicans. With a Democratic president on his way out of the White House and a media arm installed under the direct power of the Executive branch is it a stretch to believe that the former President of the United States and his political party would not use that tool for their gain?
So many of you are asking, why does “fake news” still exist if the new President can appoint Governors and his Secretary of State is in charge of the board? Well, it is not that simple, as each member of the board serves for 3 years. This means that new members could have been assigned as late as 2016 and they would be serving out their term under an administration they do not agree with and can subvert through foreign media possibly until 2019. Chief Executive Officer, John Lansing was appointed by Obama in August 2015. He was also never confirmed by the Senate. The fake news machine has gone into overdrive again as "Democrat: Whistleblowers" say White House trying to oust broadcast board CEO. - The truth is that he will finish serving his 3 year term in September 2018. The fact that they are up in arms complete with "leaks" and "whistleblowers" on CNN - should tell any person with critical thinking skills, what the narrative is and has been, who controls it and who desperately wants to keep it.
Many news outlets’ sources are "leaks" from inside the White House. Could those "leaks" be members of the former Presidents’ Board of Governors? Could it be that the "leaks" are "counter-propaganda" to other countries who may like the current President but due to disinformation from the Board of Governors they are now accepting what they think is real news but which is actually “fake news” manipulated by this board? Much of the “fake news” has been blamed on Russia, but could that news actually have been spread to the U.S through our own State Funded Board Of Governors?
Then the CIA argues that the public can’t see classified information it has already given to favored reporters. Intelligence officials can selectively release classified information to trusted journalists while withholding the same information from other citizens who request it through open records laws.
Given the current state of affairs, even the media may not always be aware when they are spreading "fake news." Many news articles and even pictures have been debunked including a recent photo of a child locked in a cage crying. The image was attributed to an ICE detention center while in reality the picture was from a protest to call attention to immigration practices at Dallas City Hall on June 10, 2018, and shared on the Facebook account of the Brown Berets de Cemanahuac -Texas Chapter. This type of blatant misinformation is detrimental to the unity and cohesion of the general public inciting anger and violence as well as mental instability among the populace.
ABC News very recently reported with a graphic screen display that Paul Manafort pled guilty to ‘manslaughter’. Deliberate mistake or not? An error like that stuck in someone’s mind to be sure. Did all the audience members ever hear or see the retraction?
When a doctor commits malpractice, that doctor loses the Medical License.
When a lawyer commits malpractice, that lawyer is disbarred.
Why is this not true for journalists, whose words and images have the same life or death effect in many cases as do cases set before a doctor or lawyer?
In my opinion, it is because journalists have what is tantamount to an irrevocable license. Because the State is protecting the media it enables.
As this power and abuse of media and news may have originated in the White House, we call on the Executive branch and The President Of The United States to address this war of misinformation. I wonder if the Citizens of the United States may have legal and constitutional grounds for a massive class action lawsuit against the United States Government, the News Media, and the Board of Governors for mental anguish, and threats of violence due to "fake news" which has separated the country and used its Citizens as political pawns. We must strike back against this bold-faced attack on our collective psyche and hold those spreading “fake news” responsible and accountable for their actions. Fake News is dangerous, sometimes deadly – let’s stop it before it’s too late. - Sign Petition here:
Subscribe to the John B Wells show on Caravan to Midnight today for the truth behind the headlines - Only $5 per month. We are sensitive to the expectations of our audience and remain faithful to our mandate to provide educational, cultural and informational programs independent of commercial obligations or influence.
Sooner or later, the dollar will indeed crash - but it won't be because of "trade deficits." It will be because the budget deficits that no one in Washington - with a couple exceptions - wants to do anything about.
"Trade deficits" are neither good nor bad. If you think about it, you have a trade deficit with your gas station, your grocery store, and your favorite restaurant. You're paying them with dollars, but they sure aren't giving you many dollars in return. There's nothing wrong with this - unless you are spending more than you earn. And even in that case, the fault is you, not the stores. Is your gas station at fault because they sell you gas, but don't buy anything from you? Of course not.
Is trump waging this trade war to get China to agree to a tariff-free agreement, like he says he is with Europe? I sure hope so, but I'm not real optimistic.
Report: Taxpayers’ Money Going To Islamic Charity Group With Ties To Terrorist Groups
Eric Lieberman | Tech and Law Reporter
One of the largest Islamic charities in the world has financial ties to several terrorist organizations, according to a report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Islamic Relief, the highly influential international nonprofit, receives funds from the Charitable Society for Social Welfare, for example, which was founded by Al-Qaida terrorist and “Bin Laden loyalist” Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani, the report says. Islamic Relief is also accused of financially supporting Hamas, the militant and political Islamist organization regarded by much of the international community as a terrorist group.
And Americans are helping foot the bill, according to the Middle East Forum (MEF), a conservative think tank based in Philadelphia that investigated and published the report. In the last 10 years, MEF says taxpayers from western countries have provided $80 million to Islamic Relief, which allegedly has a close relationship with networks of the Muslim Brotherhood, also considered by many to be a source of Islamic terrorism despite claims of violence denunciations.
A representative for the American arm of Islamic Relief told TheDCNF that MEF is trying to build conspiracies just based off of the notions that one Muslim happened to speak to another at some point in time.
“Islamic Relief has operated as a top-rated humanitarian organization for 25 years working to deliver relief and development in a non-discriminatory, dignified manner to vulnerable individuals in over 40 countries around the world,” Sharif Aly, CEO of Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), said in a statement provided to TheDCNF. “IRUSA abides by strict standards of neutrality and impartiality in carrying out its overarching humanitarian mission.”
Islamic Relief says it works with several legitimate, accredited fellow charities and government agencies around the world, like FEMA, USDA, Red Cross and HIAS, a Jewish refugee resettlement charity.
The latter group and Islamic Relief teamed up most recently to provide humanitarian and legal assistance to refugees in Greece.
“Islamic Relief USA is honored to be partnering with such an esteemed and effective organization like HIAS to protect refugees who are in great need of assistance,” Islamic Relief USA President Anwar Khan said in a statement published in January of 2018. “Our shared values have always been to help some of the most vulnerable populations around the world. With recent incidents of people not gaining access to essential services, and many having their rights violated, we will work to put a stop to these disturbing trends and promote the legal rights of all refugees.”
Nevertheless, MEF’s investigation also seems to reveal several examples of anti-Semitism — if not directly but by association — from top officials of Islamic Relief.
“It received over $700,000 of taxpayers’ money during the Obama administration,” Sam Westrop, author of the MEF report, told TheDCNF. “And now, under the Trump administration, public officials continue to speak at its events and legitimize it as a charitable institution. But this institution’s officials continue to promote some very uncharitable ideas: hatred of Jews, support for extremist ideologies, and praise for terror.”
MEF says Islamic Relief officials have “dined at the White House” and assumed positions as advisers within the U.S. Department of State.
And it’s not just public support, as corporate foundations and individual donors have provided the group with more than $4.3 million in roughly the last 17 years, according to MEF, with the largest single donation of $1.4 million coming from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
MEF lists a number of those highest up in the organization and some of their actions, which includes connections to religious figures who advocated for the killing of Jews and homosexuals, or similar advocacy themselves.
“Examples include Abdullah Hakim Quick, who claims that the Islamic position on homosexuality is ‘death’; Haitham Al-Haddad, who describes Jews as ‘pigs and apes’; and Abdul Nasir Jangda, who defends sex slavery and advocates killing apostates,” the section of the executive summary titled “hate preachers” reads.
And countries and organizations around the world have been starting to take notice in recent months.
“There is a reason for both United Arab Emirates and Israel banning Islamic Relief. There is a reason for two international banks shutting down its accounts. And there is reason for investigations by European officials into Islamic Relief’s promotion of extremist preachers who advocate violence and hate,” said Westrop. “Now it’s time for American politicians and law enforcement to look into those reasons, stop funding Islamic Relief’s work, and start challenging the pernicious extremism spread by this international franchise and its Islamist operatives in the U.S.”
Islamic Relief, however, is defending itself against what it sees as deeply flawed and often flat-out incorrect accusations.
“Any suggestion that IRUSA is, or has been, susceptible to undue influence by third parties is patently false and wholly inconsistent with the history of our humanitarian work and programming, as well as our demonstrated record of operating as a transparent, accountable and legally compliant non-profit institution in the United States,” Aly continued. “IRUSA and its officials, trustees and staff firmly and unequivocally denounce any allegations that it has ties to terrorists or terror-linked organizations.”
Of course, despite some of the good work that Islamic Relief does do in many parts of the world, MEF thinks that there are critical problems that vastly outweigh its efforts. (RELATED: Twitter: ‘Our Mistake’ For Restricting User Who Criticized Hamas)
“Ultimately, if Western governments are serious about fighting the intolerant, divisive and violent effects of global Islamism, then Islamic Relief must be shut down,” the report concludes. “It is the flagship institution of lawful Islamism in the West. There are certainly Muslim charities that do not promote extremism and subsidize terrorism. Why should taxpayers all over the world fund a charity that does?”
Americans have been played again by open-border advocates
By Brian Lonergan, opinion contributor — 06/22/18
Americans care about children. We get upset when we hear stories or see images of children in distress. The problem is, some in positions of power exploit that concern to achieve their political agendas. They use words and show images that don’t reflect the truth.
This is happening on our southern border with reckless abandon. The Trump administration’s immigration priorities are toppling the dysfunctional status quo in Washington, and the open borders lobby is fighting back by using a playbook that has served it well for many years. They just used it again with the children on the border crisis story with great success.
The playbook goes something like this: Identify an issue, in this case, the immigration laws whereby children of illegal aliens were housed separately while their parents’ cases are being adjudicated. Then spread wild misrepresentations, sensationalism and flat-out lies about the targeted policy. Next, deploy fellow travelers in the media, entertainment and the pundit class to pile on manufactured outrage at the enforcers of such a purportedly sinister policy. After several days of scathing media coverage declaring the entire nation aghast at the policy, the president calms his panic-stricken congressional allies and seeks to appease the angry mob.
It’s played like a street hustler’s card game, and the American people are starting to realize that they are the sucker in the game.
People are getting wise to the kind of manipulation that took place with the children at the border. They see the absurd exploitation in the news, such as the publishing of photos suggesting that Trump policies put migrant children at the border in cages, until it was revealed that the photos were from the Obama era or not from the border at all. Migrant children in U.S. government custody, it turns out, are housed in very comfortable facilities with better food, housing, medical care and education services than many American children in low-income families receive. They see that foreigners are being coached by lawyers from open borders groups to say the “magic words” that trigger the asylum process, even though their claims may be dubious at best.
Americans do not want a two-tiered justice system which gives non-citizens more rights than themselves. They are sick of politicians who value the interests of foreigners over U.S. citizens. It has been an accepted part of the social contract in America that those who commit criminal acts face criminal penalties, including incarceration. U.S. citizens who break the law are sent to prison every day with little or no weight given to the fact that they may have children. Now we are told that non-citizens who break our laws should get special treatment because they have children. That is unfair — to Americans.
More Americans see that allowing unfettered, chaotic migration to America is not an act of kindness, but an irresponsible act that Americans suffer for on a daily basis. For every illegal alien who merely seeks better financial prospects — not grounds for asylum under U.S. law, it is worth noting — there are too many others who bring with them MS-13 gang membership, drug trafficking, violent crimes and murder. They see their local schools, hospitals and social services overwhelmed. Even when nonviolent aliens enter the country illegally, they often commit identity fraud with stolen social security numbers, which forces American citizens to repair the damage to their lives. Who in the media pleads the case for these innocents? Simply put, illegally entering our country is not a victimless crime.
Much to his credit, President Trump has vowed that zero-tolerance will continue alongside his executive order requiring migrant families to be kept together in government custody. Beyond a small group of stalwart Republicans in Congress, it seems the only person in Washington even considering the interests of the American people is President Trump and his pillars of immigration reform including a real border wall and ending chain migration and the visa lottery program. Citizens of other countries seemingly have more representation in Congress when it comes to immigration than do the citizens of this country. That is an absolute disgrace.
It is clear that the outrage being hurled at President Trump has almost nothing to do with concern for the children. It is merely the latest tactic by those who desire an open southern border, to the point that the United States can no longer be considered a nation of laws and borders. Now that migrant families will be reunited on the border, the next alleged crime against humanity will be that those families are being detained at all. Those who vilify Trump’s zero-tolerance enforcement are essentially giving a government subsidy to the child smuggling black market, which sees lucrative profits as more would-be asylum seekers are drawn to what they correctly see as an easy pass into America. Open borders do not help children, they put them in peril.
If those who claim a monopoly on caring for the children at the border really want to help them, the best thing they could do is to stop conning the American people while demonizing those who only want a safe, sovereign America. Stop the games and start working on real solutions.
Brian Lonergan is director of communications at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of illegal migration.