What He Says vs. What He Does

President Biden has pledged to get tough on illegal immigration. It’s about time. However, are you going to believe what you hear or what you see?

On Sunday, The New York Post reported the following:

While the Biden administration is attempting to look like it’s getting tough on the border, behind the scenes it’s operating a program of “mass amnesty” for migrants, The Post can reveal.

Data show that since 2022, more than 350,000 asylum cases filed by migrants have been closed by the US government if the applicants don’t have a criminal record or are otherwise not deemed a threat to the country.

This means that while the migrants are not granted or denied asylum — their cases are “terminated without a decision on the merits of their asylum claim” — they are removed from the legal system and no longer required to check in with authorities.

The move allows them to legally, indefinitely roam the US without fear of deportation, effectively letting them slip through the cracks.

The article includes the following chart:

The Democrats keep talking about saving ‘Democracy’ (we are a Republic–not a Democracy), but have they ever considered that the number of people entering this country illegally cannot easily be assimilated? Have they ever considered the number of Americans unemployed because many of these immigrants are working ‘under the table’ for very low wages? Have they considered the impact on our social safety net of having illegals in need of housing, medical care and food? If you are not yet familiar with the Cloward-Piven theory, it is now time to look it up.

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s attempt to tighten things up at the border has included issuing a rule in May that asylum claims must be resolved within 180 days for migrants who list their final destination in the US as Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles or New York City.

The administration is also poised to issue an order to close the border once the number of migrant crossings reaches 4,000 per day, sources told The Post.

In April, US authoriites in the southwest intercepted an average of 5,990 migrants per day, according to US Customs and Border Protection. That figure didn’t even include the so-called “gotaways” who escape detection and arrest.

I am hoping we can hang on until we can change administrations in November and begin deportations in January.

Embracing CO2

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D   

The environmental extremists would have us believe that CO2 is a destructive force for the earth and must be controlled if we are to survive. Recently, a group of scientists not only refuted this notion but stated that increasing levels of CO2 will actually be beneficial to mankind. How is it possible that completely opposite views can exist among climate scientists when the media is constantly telling us that manmade CO2 emissions as an existential threat is “settled science”? The actual truth of this debate would not be so critical if the Biden regime were not using it to completely transform our energy production into something that can never support our industrial society and will destroy our standard of living.   

Recently, Patrick Moore, the chief scientist of Ecosense Environmental, stated that “There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change”.  Just like the Left used fear to get us to use noneffective masks and shut down our economy, the socialist environmental extremists are blaming climate change and so-called disasters on burning of fossil fuels. The truth is that due to modern industrialization using fossil fuels, there have been dramatically fewer deaths from weather factors. For example, in 1925 there were 484,880 reported worldwide deaths from weather factors compared to 14,893  in 2020, in spite of a dramatic increase in the use of fossil fuels. While it is true that humans do not need CO2, the plants we rely on for food absolutely do. The plants use the CO2 for food and produce oxygen in return. Nice reciprocal arrangement, don’t you think? In fact, commercial greenhouses often pump CO2 into their atmosphere in order to dramatically increase plant growth. In past epochs, the CO2 level in the atmosphere was many times higher than today.   

While scientific debate is generally a good thing if it leads to truth, the problem is the Biden regime has decided what is true and anyone with an opposite view is called a “climate denier” and punished. Typical socialism where the government knows what is best for us and you better comply. The actions the Biden regime are taking (with the concurrence of some Republicans) will destroy our way of life and lower our standard of living. The inflation we are experiencing is a clear example. Like all socialist governments it is all about controlling the people. From eliminating gas stoves and pushing electric vehicles as well as taxpayer subsidized wind and solar energy our freedom to choose is being taken away. 

We must fight back against this attack on our freedom. How? First, we must elect candidates who recognize the hoax of manmade climate change, such as Donald Trump who pulled our country out of the damaging Paris Climate Accords. Second, we must get our elected officials to reverse green energy policies that subsidize wind and solar and electric vehicles. If you want an electric vehicle, no problem, just do not expect others to help pay for it. Third, state and federal environmental agencies must be stopped from issuing draconian regulations. Cummings Diesel company was recently required to pay a two billion dollar fine for not complying with an EPA regulation. Fourth, the NC General Assembly must repeal the mandate that requires a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030. 

The ultimate issue is freedom of choice versus government control. It is up to us. 

Watching The Slippery Slope

Every time a criminal or a crazy person shoots people, the Democrats decide that the gun was the problem. They just don’t seem to be able to focus on the person doing the shooting. There is a total disregard for the purpose and history of the Second Amendment.

Townhall posted an article today about some recent comments by a Democrat candidate for President regarding Americans who own guns.

The article reports:

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is one of them and said earlier this week she’s open to putting gun owners who refuse to comply with bogus government “buybacks,” which is simply government confiscation, in prison.

“You don’t want to grandfather in all of the assault weapons all across America. We’d like people to sell them back to the government,” Gillibrand said during an interview with MSNBC. “The point is you don’t want people using assault weapons so the point is ff you’re arrested for using an assault weapon you’re going to be arrested for an aggravated felony. The whole point is when you make it a crime to own an assault weapon then if you are found using it, that would be the issue. It would be part of law enforcement.”

Let’s put this into context. The semi-automatic AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. The left considers it an “assault rifle.” There are more than 20 million of them owned by Americans across the country. Gillibrand wants to turn every single person who has one into a felon and institute a police state for enforcement.

The article also notes that candidate Kamala Harris is also talking about taking away the right of Americans to own guns. This is obviously unconstitutional, but there are some real questions as to whether our courts are following the Constitution. This is a critical time for gun rights in America.

 

This Might Be Something To Take Note Of

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported on a speech given by Democrat Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (MI) to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) last month. Just for the record, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial. If you are not familiar with the trial or the related documents, please follow the link to the Holy Land Foundation Trial to learn about the trial and what it means for America.

Here are some highlights of The Gateway Pundit article:

Congresswoman Tlaib was introduced by Executive Director of CAIR’s Florida chapter, Hassan Shibly — Shibly invoked the Islamic war cry as he introduced her.

“Allahu Akbar! The first Palestinian-American Muslim Congresswoman, our dear sister Rashida Tlaib!” Hassan Shibly said.

As soon as Rashida Tlaib walked up to the lectern to deliver her radical speech, she invoked the Muslim war cry of Allah in Arabic: “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim!” Tlaib said, which means, “In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate.”

This phrase begins every chapter in the Quran except one and is seen as a Muslim war cry.

In fact, this is the very same phrase Bowe Bergdahl’s father said in front of the White House in 2014 after Obama traded Taliban terrorists in exchange for traitor Bergdahl.

Rashida Tlaib then declared victory over the US government.

“‘We always said ‘the Muslims are coming’… I think we’re here!” Tlaib said as the crowd cheered.

“We’re not only everywhere in all kinds of different governments but, mashallah, we’re in the United States Congress,” she said.

She is not representing Islam as a religion–she is representing Islam as a political system, calling for Sharia Supremacy. Please understand what that means–an end to the U.S. Constitution, an end to any sort of freedom for women, the death of homosexuals, killing of infidels, jizya, a tax on non-Muslims, and the goal of establishing a worldwide caliphate. Unfortunately, we have allowed the camel’s nose into our tent, and unless we realize this and correct our mistake, the rest of the camel will soon follow. She represents her district. She represents the result of allowing large numbers of immigrants to come to America without requiring them to assimilate. Her election represents a threat to our republic.

Have We Truly Lost A Government Where All Men Are Equal?

Victor Davis Hanson posted on article at American Greatness yesterday which illustrates what has happened in America over the past decade or so.

The article begins with an interesting scenario:

Imagine the following: The IRS sends you, John Q. Citizen, a letter alleging you have not complied with U.S. tax law. In the next paragraph, the tax agency then informs you that it needs a series of personal and business documents. Indeed, it will be sending agents out to discuss your dilemma and collect the necessary records.

But when the IRS agents arrive, you explain to them that you cannot find about 50 percent of the documents requested, and have no idea whether they even exist. You sigh that both hard copies of pertinent information have unfortunately disappeared and hard drives were mysteriously lost.

You nonchalantly add that you smashed your phone, tablet, and computer with a hammer. You volunteer that, of those documents you do have, you had to cut out, blacken or render unreadable about 30 percent of the contents. After all, you have judged that the redacted material either pertains to superfluous and personal matters such as weddings and yoga, or is of such a sensitive nature that its release would endanger your company or business or perhaps even the country at large.

You also keep silent that you have a number of pertinent documents locked up in a safe hidden in your attic unknown to the IRS. Let them find it, you muse. And when the agents question your unilateral decisions over hours of interrogatories, you remark to them on 245 occasions that you have no memory of your acts—or you simply do not have an answer for them.

Anyone reading this scenario realizes that after doing all this, they would be sitting in a jail cell hoping someone would bake them a cake with a file in it.

The article goes on to list the various misdeeds of government officials in the past two or three years. It’s a well-known list–you can follow the link to the article to read it. But somehow no one is in jail.

The article concludes:

To this day, we have no idea which officials in government leaked the unmasked names of surveilled Americans to the media, or leaked the transcripts of a conversation between the Russian Ambassador and Gen. Michael Flynn. I say we have no idea, because no one in government has any interest in finding out, because for the few, who might, to do so would earn them media and partisan venom.

The message from the Clinton email scandal, the Mueller investigation, and the careers of Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe seems to be that if the government wishes a document then do not provide it. If you are finally forced to surrender it, either erase or destroy what you can reasonably get away with hiding. Or barring that, insist that it be heavily redacted, according to your own judgment, for the sake of America. If asked to explain such behavior or allegations of leaking information to the press, either deny or claim faulty memory.

Do all of that and be of the correct political persuasion and of Washington repute, and there is little chance of criminal exposure.

Such exemption so far is the message that we’ve learned from the behavior of high officials of the Obama Justice Department, CIA, FBI and National Security Council. Or put another way, our illustrious government officials are reminding us Americans, “We are better than you.”

We will not have equal justice under the law until all lawbreakers are prosecuted, regardless of their political standing.

This Might Have Interesting Implications For American Politics

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today that Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno said that the UK has provided written assurances that they will not extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to any country where he will face the death penalty.

I really don’t have an opinion about Julian Assange. Obviously he broke the law by leaking information that was classified. Whether or not those leaks put anyone in danger, I don’t know. I guess if you are concerned with Julian Assange and his leaks, you should also look at the information taken off Hillary Clinton’s private server that actually did put people in danger. At any rate, I don’t feel as if I know enough about what was actually leaked to understand his case. However, his problems with the American government began about 2008. The Obama administration was known to be harsh on any whistleblowers, and it is possible that Assange was simply a whistleblower. It is also possible that if Assange had successfully hacked into the files of the Obama administration he would be a reliable source on President Obama’s use of government agencies to target his political enemies. We know that happened with the IRS and conservative organizations, and it is becoming obvious that there were other instances where conservatives were spied upon–for example Sharyl Attkisson.

The article at The Gateway Pundit concludes:

It was recently revealed through a filing error that Assange has been secretly charged in the United States — though the nature of the charges remains unknown.

At the end of November, a judge heard arguments about unsealing the charges, but no decision was made.

The US government argued that the press and the public have no right to know what the charges against the publisher actually are. He explained that he would be willing to provide more information in a closed setting.

The UK has refused to acknowledge the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), which found that he is being arbitrarily and unlawfully detained and must be immediately released and compensated.

As Matt Taibbi recently wrote in a must read op-ed for Rolling Stone, “the more likely eventuality is a prosecution that uses the unpopularity of Assange to shut one of the last loopholes in our expanding secrecy bureaucracy. Americans seem not to grasp what might be at stake. Wikileaks briefly opened a window into the uglier side of our society, and if publication of such leaks is criminalized, it probably won’t open again.”

Stay tuned.

Another Cost Of Runaway Spending

CNS News is reporting today that the amount of the U. S. Government debt held by the Federal Reserve has increased by 257 percent since President Barack Obama was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, and the Fed is currently the single largest holder of U.S. government debt.

The article reports:

Since Obama has been president, the publicly held portion of the U.S. government debt (as opposed to the “intragovernmental” debt the government has borrowed from federal trust funds such as the Social Security Trust Fund) has increased by  $5,264,245,866,257.40. The $.221369 in additional U.S. government debt the Fed has purchased during Obama’s presidency equals 23 percent of all the new publicly held debt the Treasury has issued during that time.

Please read that again. That paragraph refers to the fact that the government has borrowed from federal trust funds such as the Social Security Trust Fund. Remember, this is the government that is referring to Social Security as an entitlement. I don’t think I am too far off base when I say that the way the government has handled the Social Security Trust Fund should convince us that we should give the government as little of our money as possible–they did not handle money well.

Unless we elect people who are willing to curb Washington’s runaway spending, our nation will be bankrupt by the time the next president takes office.