Thursday’s front page of the Washington Post featured Guatemalan illegal aliens “streaming to the U.S. border” because America has been mean to them historically and they have been unlucky regarding a volcano. Or something.
Naturally, when a volcano erupts, people in the area have to flee so they aren’t burned alive, Pompeii style. But the article notes, “Many of the survivors, with nothing left, headed for the United States” — as if there were no other alternative, although some volcano victims did indeed relocate within the country.
America has been generous to victims of war and natural disaster — perhaps unduly so. Now an unlimited welcome mat is expected, even though the population of the vulnerable Third World has grown by billions of humans in recent decades.
Here’s a shocker statistic from the article: “More than 250,000 Guatemalans — at least 2% of the country’s population — have migrated to the United States in the past two years.”
That’s not what I had in mind when I voted for candidate Trump in 2016. The Deep State clearly wants open borders, but the president could have pushed harder for enforcement over the two years when he had a Republican congress. And today it seems little has changed to keep out illegal alien invaders.
The article is one long narrative of Third World victimhood, because liberal scribblers cannot imagine brown people coping with adversity in their own homeland and who instead must be rescued by the big bad white United States.
Indigenous Guatemalans flee volcano, search for safer ground in Guatemala or United States, by Kevin Sieff, Washington Post, November 27, 2019
COLONIA QUINCE DE OCTUBRE LA TRINIDAD, Guatemala - In this village at the base of the Volcano of Fire, there’s a simple explanation for the surge in migration to the United States, and there’s a complicated one.
The simple explanation is that on June 3, 2018, the volcano erupted, killing hundreds of people in minutes and rendering a patch of Guatemala uninhabitable. Many of the survivors, with nothing left, headed for the United States.
But the more complicated story is the one that residents here discuss before leaving - a history in which the United States is intimately involved. It’s the story of how Guatemala’s indigenous communities have been displaced and dispossessed for more than a century - sometimes fleeing U.S.-backed soldiers, sometimes ferried in caravans funded by U.S.-backed aid groups.
It’s the story of how La Trinidad came to be relocated to the base of an active volcano, with the assistance of the United Nations, the United States and the Guatemalan government.
More than 250,000 Guatemalans - at least 2% of the country’s population - have migrated to the United States in the past two years. Of those migrants, analysts say, a disproportionate number are indigenous. More than two decades since this country’s civil war, which pitted Guatemala’s military against its native communities, the exodus points to one of Latin America’s starkest inequalities. It points to places like La Trinidad.
“We’ve been migrating for 100 years,” says Simeon Camposeco Aguilar, a 56-year-old coffee farmer here. “Sometimes it feels like this community is going to keep moving forever.”
Camposeco’s son migrated to central California two months after the volcano erupted. It continues to rumble every 15 minutes or so, sending a plume of smoke into the air and shaking the ground.
“It’s normal! It’s normal!” Camposeco reassures outsiders. That’s what the residents of Trinidad told each other until June 2018, when lava flowed toward them at 150 mph.
The Guatemalan government published a declaration this July: “The community is not appropriate for urban development,” officials said. The recommendation? “Total evacuation.”
Now, it was up to Camposeco and other community leaders: Could they find a new place to live in Guatemala, an alternative that would stop the flow to the United States? (Continues)
Author and radio show host Dennis Prager has been doing interviews for the upcoming national release of the documentary No Safe Spaces that he produced with Adam Corolla.
Prager recently visited Martha MacCallum for a chat about the film where he discussed his concerns about the threat to free speech in this country today that starts with what young people are taught. As he remarked, “The university has substituted indoctrination for education.”
The Left fears unrestricted speech from conservatives and moderates, so it has trained a victim class of overly sensitive liberal young people by posing any disagreement as an attack on their superior values and probably racist in some way.
Unfortunately the demand for politically correct speech doesn’t stop at the campus; instead the silly and distracting rules of the left have permeated our society up and down.
The Fox News segment begins with part of the movie trailer, then gets to the interview at around 1:35 in the video following:
MARTHA MacCALLUM: Dennis Prager joins me now. Radio host of the Dennis Prager Show. Dennis, great to see you. Thank you for being on tonight.
DENNIS PRAGER: Great to be with you. Thank you.
MacCALLUM: So, I mean, just watching that trailer. And I watched, you know, pieces of the film today. It is so disturbing that we’ve gotten to a point where you can’t have these discussions on college campuses, which is exactly the place that you should be having them. When Art Laffer gets shut down — you know, the designer of the Laffer curve and the Reagan economy — you just have to wonder, what is so deeply upsetting and controversial about Art Laffer?
PRAGER: What’s deeply upsetting is that the man is not on the Left. That is all it takes. It’s unprecedented in American history that there is a such a large percentage of young people — or, of that matter, old people — who believe the First Amendment needs to be changed. And those are the polls. About 50 percent of millennials believe that the First Amendment should be modified to ban hate speech. But of course, the whole point of free speech is that what you consider hate speech is irrelevant. What I consider hate speech is irrelevant.
When I was a kid, Nazis — real Nazis — what I mean “real” is not people who were called Nazi by the Left because they don’t agree with them. I’ve been called “Nazi,” and I’ve devoted my life to Judaism and to the Jewish people, and write a Torah commentary, and built a synagogue. And I’ve been called a Nazi. Google has an email that declares Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Prager U — my website, Prager University — Nazis.
But real Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois, where there were Holocaust survivors, because they’re such cruel human beings, these Nazis. Jewish groups and liberal groups all said, “Of course. In America, even real Nazis can march in a Jewish neighborhood.” That’s America.
It’s changed, and that’s the first time in American history that this is the case. And it started at the university. That’s what this film is about. Continue reading this article
It’s hard to keep illegal aliens out of America, including convicted criminals. America must look totally irresistible from outside when even killers re-enter when they may face serious repercussions if re-arrested.
A recent reminder was the return of Guatemalan Olga Marina Franco del Cid who had been imprisoned for killing four Minnesota children a decade ago.
Sentenced for killing four kids in a school bus crash, she was found living here illegally and jailed by ICE.
A Guatemalan woman who was deported after serving eight years in prison on felony charges stemming from a 2008 fatal crash with a school bus in Cottonwood, Minn., was arrested Tuesday by immigration authorities for illegally re-entering the country.
Olga Marina Franco del Cid, 35, was arrested at her residence in Inver Grove Heights after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers got a tip that she had returned to Minnesota.
Franco del Cid was convicted in October 2008 of four counts of criminal vehicular homicide and 17 counts of criminal vehicular operation, giving a false name to police, failing to stop at the entrance to a thruway, and driving without a valid license. Four students died in the February 2008 crash.
The case drew nationwide attention at the time from people focused on the illegal immigration debate.
Responders at the scene found Franco del Cid behind the steering wheel, her right foot wedged under a crumpled dashboard near the accelerator. Her attorneys argued that her boyfriend was the one driving the van and fled because he didn’t want to be deported to Mexico. They argued that he was thrown out of the van on impact, and Franco del Cid was thrown into the driver’s seat. (Continues)
The case sounded familiar — four Minnesota school kids killed by an illegal alien, but the name of the perp was different and the victims’ names were absent in the current news reports from what I remembered. Here’s my blog about it at the time:
Four Minnesota School Children Killed by Illegal Alien, Vdare.com, February 22, 2008
The terrible bus crash that killed four school kids and injured over a dozen others earlier this week was the fault of an unlicensed illegal alien, Alianiss Nunez Morales. She was driving a van that ran through a stop sign and smashed into the bus. [. . .]
Shown below are the four children killed (clockwise from top left) Hunter Javens, 9, and his brother Jesse Javens, 13, both of Cottonwood; Emilee Olson, 9, of Cottonwood; and Reed Stevens, 12, of Marshall, MN.
It took a bit of Google snooping, but yes, Olga Franco del Cid is also Alianiss Nunez Morales, the convicted killer of four American children.
Perhaps I’m picky, but the news story about her marriage a little over a year after the kids’ deaths was too cheerful even for the sicko conventional press:
Jerome Harvieux watched the news last year about a school bus crash in Cottonwood, Minn.
For months, the St. Paul man followed media reports about the four children who died and about Olga Franco, the illegal immigrant from Guatemala who was charged with their deaths.
Harvieux believed Franco was being unfairly targeted — a scapegoat because she was undocumented. [. . .]
Franco, 25, is serving a 12 1/2-year sentence at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Shakopee after being convicted for the Feb. 19, 2008, crash that killed Hunter Javens, 9; his 13-year-old brother, Jesse Javens; Emilee Olson, 9; and Reed Stevens, 12.
So here is love and marriage among the diversity-loving liberal set, where an illegal alien killing four kids is no problema.
Hopefully the Guatemalan criminal will get a long sentence for her repeat illegal entry — perhaps 20 years in federal prison as was mentioned in one report.
Fedex wants us to believe that basic robot delivery on urban streets is about to become a normal thing, judging from the company’s smart box on wheels entrance in New York City.
The mechanical job-killers have not gone unnoticed. During Mayor De Blasio’s brief period of active campaigning to be President, he took a stand against automation, even appearing on Tucker Carlson’s TV show in September where the mayor warned about “middle-class Americans, working-class Americans whose jobs are not going to be there if we don’t do something different.”
But he didn’t answer Tucker’s question, “If you really believe that automation is a threat to low-skilled jobs, why are you for mass immigration?”
In recent days, De Blasio tweeted out his opposition to the Fedex robots doing delivery jobs in the city he runs, perhaps to show that he is not completely oblivious to the well being of the citizens:
First of all, @FedEx, never get a robot to do a New Yorker’s job. We have the finest workers in the world.
Second of all, we didn’t grant permission for these to clog up our streets. If we see ANY of these bots we’ll send them packing. https://t.co/XxJIrIW9vr
— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) November 23, 2019
At any rate, Fedex succeeded with its announcement that the robots are coming, and soon.
A bunch of FedEx delivery robots rolled around lower Manhattan as part of a promotion last week, prompting bewildered pedestrians to share videos of the jarring sight on social media.
“Wall-E out here flexing all over FedEx delivery drivers,” wrote @WhatIsNY while posting a video of one of the boxy cyborgs-on-wheels — part of FedEx’s “SameDay Bot” courier fleet — cutting through a group crossing Crosby Street near Houston Street.
Another video on Reddit showed one of the self-propelled bots spinning on its wheels in Soho.
“Skynet is sending its soldiers into the streets of NYC,” the writer quipped, referring to the “Terminator” movie franchise.
FedEx said Sunday that its SameDay Bots — also known as Roxos— were only visiting the Big Apple and are still undergoing testing in other markets. They use artificial intelligence, motion sensors and stair-climbing wheels to travel on sidewalks and along roads.
“FedEx is not currently testing its SameDay Delivery Bot, Roxo, in New York City,” the company said in a statement. “The Bot was visiting New York for a special event. Future testing plans are not yet determined.”
Still, Roxo’s brief appearance caused a stir among New Yorkers.
Chris Livingston, a FedEx customer shipping a package from the East Village, said there is no room for the bots to safely maneuver the streets.
“It’s bad enough Amazon has tons of boxes filling up sidewalks everywhere, but now I’ve got to worry about that on the sidewalk. It’s one more annoyance in the city,” said Livingston, 42.
Mayor de Blasio slammed the cutting-edge tech in a tweet, accusing the bot of stealing jobs from New Yorkers.
“First of all, @FedEx, never get a robot to do a New Yorker’s job. We have the finest workers in the world,” Hizzoner wrote Saturday. “Second of all, we didn’t grant permission for these to clog up our streets.”
City Hall said Sunday the devices will be removed on sight.
“These large autonomous robots are not allowed on city streets, and they’re a public safety hazard for New Yorkers. We’ll use appropriate methods to remove them immediately,” City Hall spokesman Will Baskin-Gerwitz told The Post.
But FedEx insisted that the bots employ a number of safety features — and the company will work lawmakers to ensure they meet regulatory standards. (Continues)
Saturday is a slow day for newspapers, so the Washington Post apparently thought it could throw up some easy Trump-bashing with a sob story about asylum seekers.
The front-page photo featured a lone toddler wandering a cruel Mexican street — say, shouldn’t that child have a parent nearby? Or do the family values of diverse foreigners not extend to minding the kiddies?
After noting the “sick or despondent” children in the camp of 1600 asylum seekers, the Post blamed the Trump administration’s policies for the suffering.
For some reason, millions in the Third World regard the United States as their personal rescue service, despite America’s primary responsibility to its own citizens. And if the whole family gaggle can’t get accepted in the US, then “concerned” moms send the kids over the border alone — as if raising abandoned foreign children is the American taxpayers’ job.
A new regulation will allow U.S. border officers to send asylum seekers to several Latin American countries instead of being released into the United States.
Similarly, the Associated Press wrote: Tougher US asylum policy follows in Europe’s footsteps. No surprise there — Europe has been inundated also. The First World cannot rescue the billions of poor Third Worlders through squishy immigration.
The deal isn’t exactly new news, since President Trump has been working out arrangements with a few Latin American countries including Mexico to accept some of their region’s wanna-be illegal aliens to the United States.
It would be better to end the asylum/refugee scam altogether, since it helps only a tiny fraction of poor people in the Third World. If there were no possibility of rescue in the First World, then millions would demand reform in their home nations which could lead to a better outcome for more people.
But that’s not the political choice being made. In fact, the point of the Post article is that foreign parents are dumping their sick children onto the US taxpayer for expensive healthcare. Many citizens would prefer to see down-on-their-luck Americans get better treatment.
It’s interesting that the most common health problems named were respiratory illnesses — perhaps due to being dragged from Central America to the US border?
The Post story was reprinted by MSN, linked below:
MATAMOROS, Mexico — In the middle of the largest refugee camp on the U.S. border — close enough to Texas that migrants can see an American flag hovering across the Rio Grande — Marili’s children had fallen ill.
Josue was 5. Madeline was 3. The small family was huddled together in a nylon camping tent with two blankets last week when the temperature sank to 37 degrees. The children started coughing, Marili said. Then their fingers and toes turned bright red. The camp’s doctor had begun to see cases of frostbite.
Like most of the roughly 1,600 asylum seekers at the informal camp, Marili and her children had crossed the border into the United States this summer only to be sent back to Mexico to await their asylum cases — part of a year-old U.S. policy called the Migrant Protection Protocols.
In recent weeks, dozens of parents have watched as their children, sleeping outside in the cold, have become sick or despondent. Many decided to get them help the only way they knew how — sending them across the border alone. As Josue and Madeline grew sicker, it was Marili’s turn to make a decision.
These cases illustrate the the Trump administration’s policy and suggest the United States, Mexico and the United Nations were unprepared to handle many of the unforeseen consequences.
Marili, fleeing gang violence in Honduras, knew that unaccompanied children were admitted into the United States without enduring the MPP bureaucracy and the months-long wait. The 29-year-old mother — who, like others here, asked not to be identified by her last name, for fear it could affect her asylum case — believed that returning home would be suicide. So she bundled up her children in all of their donated winter clothes and scrawled a letter to U.S. immigration officials on a torn piece of paper.
“My children are very sick and exposed to many risks in Mexico,” she wrote. “I don’t have any other way to get them to safety.”
She pressed the letter into Josue’s hand, she said, and pointed the children to three U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in the middle of the Gateway International Bridge, the span across the Rio Grande that connects Matamoros to Brownsville, Tex.
“Josue told me, ‘Please don’t send us,’ ” Marili said, crying at the memory. “But as a mother, I knew it was the best decision for them.”
Then she sprinted to the bottom of the bridge and watched through the fence as her children turned themselves in, weeping and wondering when she would see them again, hoping they would find their way to her husband. He had entered the United States and applied for asylum before MPP was implemented. He was allowed to stay. [. . .]
Global Response Management, the Florida-based nonprofit that runs the small medical clinic under the blue tarp, saw a surge in patients, most of them children. The most common cases were respiratory illnesses, said Megan Algeo, the doctor on call at the time. In one case, Algeo said, she persuaded U.S. immigration agents to admit a child for emergency care.
Many of America’s immigration laws are wrong-headed at the core, and arguably one of the worst is the U Visa which allowed foreign crime victims to remain in the United States as long as the offense against them was being investigated.
But over time, the temporary hang out turned into a green card. In 2013, Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) introduced the “U Visa Reform Act of 2013,” H.R. 463, but it didn’t go anywhere.
For background, see my 2007 article, Victim Visas—How America Stupidly Rewards Misfortune and Fraud.
Naturally, that sort of law is a serious fraud magnet, such as reported here in a 2013 case where an illegal alien in California arranged to have a fake robbery against her so she could remain in the US as a privileged crime victim.
On Friday, Tucker Carlson noted a rather more grandiose U Visa charade, involving 10 aliens at Bob’s Burgers n’ Teriyakis in SeaTac, Washington.
The good news is the fraud was figured out pretty quickly; the bad news is that Washington is a sanctuary state, so the aliens won’t be deported.
TUCKER CARLSON: Well, it’s a story so nuts and unlikely, it can only happen in something like America’s immigration system where crazy things do happen quite a bit.
According to the Sheriff’s Office in King County, Washington — that’s where Seattle is — a group of about 10 immigrants carried out an elaborate fake burglary against themselves, and why did they do that? But one of the many visas that we offer to foreigners is called a non-immigrant visa. It allows a foreigner who was a victim of a crime in the United States to stay in this country for the sake of assisting authorities in solving the crime.
Now, since this crime was fake, of course, the hope was that the case would never be closed and they could stay in this country long term, maybe even forever.
Jason Rantz has been following the story. He’s a Seattle area radio show host and he joins us tonight. So Jason, did I describe that correctly? I mean, you know, it’s almost like out of a movie, this story.
JASON RANTZ: It’s insane and obviously this is a crime that freaked out a whole bunch of people. It happened in SeaTac, it’s right outside of Seattle. We don’t normally see these kinds of robberies, where in this case it was alleged that two men in masks, one with a handgun went into Bob’s Burgers and Teriyaki. It’s this restaurant. They held people up, they tied people up. They sexually assaulted two of the female victims before getting away.
And the story was that some customer wandered in and noticed that this had happened and called 911, and then obviously King County Sheriff’s Deputies took this incredibly seriously. They had a specific description of the two individuals. They had a car and a license plate, and it turns out it was completely a hoax. And they found out pretty quickly that it was a hoax.
And during the investigation they discovered, yes this was, so they thought they would qualify to have a U Visa which says under certain circumstances under certain crimes, you’re protected from being deported because you would have to participate in the actual justice system to go after these bad guys.
Now in theory, when you think you’re not actually going to be deported because there’s not actually a crime, but they think there’s a crime, it means indefinitely they’d be able to stay here. Continue reading this article
“Do we really believe that America is one nation under God, made up from every other people?” he writes. “Or is America instead a nation that is essentially white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant, but permits the presence of peoples of other races, colors, and religions?”
It does not appear that America’s founders imagined the nation to be a test tube for diversity. But extreme diversity — including historic enemies like the followers of hostile Islam — is certainly what we have gotten through immigration, although Americans never voted for an influx of unfriendlies, polygamists and jihadists.
Indeed, the American revolution can be seen as an outgrowth of the Protestant reformation, particularly when among the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, only one was catholic. A religious scholar notes, “ ‘There is no King, but King Jesus,’ a rallying cry in the colonies during the American Revolution, had its roots in the Reformation.”
We can be sure that Gomez will use his new office to campaign for a mass amnesty benefiting millions of foreign lawbreakers — he pledged to in an article that appeared on the Los Angeles Times front page on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, a search for news of Catholic Priest Sex Abuse for the last 30 days gets over a million results, yet the archbishop believes he is qualified to lecture us Americans about the law and fairness of our immigration policies. Perhaps getting his own house in order would be a more appropriate project than shredding American sovereignty.
Of course it’s obvious that the US has millions of loyal citizens who are also catholics, but the Vaticrats have harbored a den of corruption for centuries.
The Times article was reprinted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, posted below:
LOS ANGELES — On the eve of his election as the new leader of U.S. bishops, Archbishop Jose Gomez had a message for the faithful back home: It was well past time for immigration reform.
“In this great country, we should not have our young people living under the threat of deportation, their lives dependent on the outcome of a court case,” the archbishop of Los Angeles said in an email to his flock Monday evening.
Alluding to Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court arguments on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, Gomez continued: “We pray tonight that our president and Congress will come together, set aside their differences, and provide our young brothers and sisters with a path to legalization and citizenship.”
Already the highest-ranking Latino in the U.S. Catholic Church, Gomez on Tuesday marked another milestone when he became the first Latino elected president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Born in Monterrey, Mexico, Gomez has in recent years evolved into a high-profile and authoritative voice in the American church, advocating for policy reforms that would include a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally. The soft-spoken 67-year-old will begin his three-year term as president just as his tenure as vice president comes to an end.
His election, which kicked off the second day of the bishops’ fall meeting in Baltimore, was regarded by many observers of the Roman Catholic Church as a fait accompli, a historic moment set in motion in 2016 when he was elected vice president of the national conference. Some within the church hope that Gomez will utilize his experience fighting for immigrant rights in his new post, leading the conference to be more outspoken in advocating for immigration reform.
“I am overwhelmed. It is a big responsibility,” Gomez said in a phone interview Tuesday. “I am grateful to the bishops for their support and confidence in me, and I think this is a great lesson for the archdiocese, for Los Angeles and Latinos in the country.”
Gomez’s rise comes amid Latinos’ shifting relationship with the Catholic faith. U.S. Latinos are no longer majority-Catholic, according to a Pew Research Center survey released last month. Some 47% describe themselves as Catholic, the survey showed, down from 57% a decade ago. At the same time, 23% of Latinos say they are religiously unaffiliated, up from 15% in 2009.
Gomez’s ascendance could help shore up or even replenish the number of Latino Catholics.
“This is huge,” Father Thomas J. Reese, a senior analyst at Religion News Service, said of the election. “Having a Mexican American as the president of the bishops conference sends a real message to Hispanics across the country, showing that not only are they part of the church, they are also part of the leadership of the church at the highest level.”
Gomez, a naturalized U.S. citizen, will take up his new position at a time of bitter division over the Trump administration’s immigration policies, Reese added.
“This is a Mexican immigrant who is going to be the leader at a time when immigrants are demonized,” Reese said. “This is a symbolic message from the bishops on the importance of the immigration issue to them, and the importance of immigrants to the Catholic Church and in American society.”
L.A.’s archbishop is at once a conservative and a progressive: staunch in his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage while tenacious in his advocacy for immigrants and the poor.
“He knows we have a very divided church today and one of my hopes with him as the head of the conference is he will find ways to bring us together,” said Father Thomas P. Rausch, a professor of theological studies at Loyola Marymount University. “He’s conservative, but his impulses are pastoral.”
As the archbishop of the San Antonio archdiocese before coming to L.A., Gomez emerged as a leading advocate for doctrinal conformity, determined to stave off what he saw as creeping secularism in the church.
But in 2013, Gomez published a book that voiced his support for a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country without legal status. His advocacy aligns with efforts by Pope Francis to raise awareness about the challenges immigrants face. (Continues)
There has been a growing clamor against the heavy hand of Big Tech meddling in political and cultural affairs in the United States. Concerned citizens complain, but Washington has done nothing to diminish the extreme power of Google in particular.
On Wednesday, Tucker Carlson interviewed Floyd Brown, co-author of the new book Big Tech Tyrants.
Brown says he is “terrified” at the unbridled power of Big Tech — as well he should be.
TUCKER CARLSON: So you’d think that we’d have a free press in this country — we’re guaranteed it in the Bill of Rights, but it’s not exactly free anymore. Big tech controls it and the tech companies are doing everything they can to shape the narrative, the storyline around impeachment.
For example, Facebook and YouTube, which control a much larger percentage of digital media than anyone realizes are now censoring, flat out censoring any material that mentions the name of the man believed to be the whistleblower. They’re not letting you know who this guy is.
Floyd Brown is co-author of “Big Tech Tyrants.” And he joins us tonight. So Floyd, it seems to me that we’ve moved to a stage a year out from a Presidential election, where the tech monopolies, which really control all of digital journalism in this country, are deciding what facts we’re allowed to know. Why should we not be terrified?
AUTHOR FLOYD BROWN: We should be terrified, and I am terrified. The truth is, is that over half of all news consumed by Americans is consumed on these social media platforms.
And when they can censor the way they’re censoring right now -both Facebook and Google around the name of this whistleblower — it’s chilling. It’s absolutely chilling.
They have such dominant power. In fact, you know, I know that Fox News isn’t saying the name of the whistleblower, but the name of the whistleblower was accidentally said by somebody on your network, and then that was posted on YouTube, which was immediately censored by Google.
So what you have — I’m the publisher of the Western Journal — we have decided to publish the name of the whistleblower, and we’ve done four stories on the whistleblower, and we have 43 million followers on Facebook. I don’t think ten of them have seen those particular stories.
CARLSON: So I mean, look, there’s a legitimate debate here. Let me just say that no one in Fox has told me what to do or not on that issue despite a lot of reporting to the contrary, I haven’t named the guy because I haven’t confirmed it. I can’t find anybody who will confirm it. But as soon as we do, we will I mean, that’s, you know — that’s journalism, and you may disagree.
But the point is this guy, whether he is the whistleblower or not, is at the center of a really important news story, and the average person ought to be able to make up his or her mind on that, but we’re not allowed to, because the tech monopolists won’t allow us. So why is Congress standing back and not saving us from this? Seriously. Continue reading this article
The DACA case has reached the Supreme Court which shows how corrupt our legal system has become because Obama’s unlawful amnesty never should have gotten that far.
The Constitution clearly states, “The Congress shall have Power To…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization….” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), so Obama’s king-like creation of the DACA category was entirely unlawful, but he did it anyway. It was a major abuse of our founding document, causing increased illegal immigration of thousands, but there was little dissent from the Congress or the press.
President Obama himself recognized the illegality of an executive amnesty, shown by his frequent mention of the fact that his powers did not allow such an action. A video from 2014 showed several instances of his explaining that constitutional limitation:
Nevertheless, Obama went ahead and enacted his DACA amnesty despite its illegality. Hopefully we will see the odious thing dismantled soon.
The arguments were heard in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and the legal smackdown of the Obama Amnesty must have gone pretty well, judging from the headlines.
The newspaper headline of the Washington Post read, “High court seems receptive to effort to end DACA.”
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready on Tuesday to side with the Trump administration in its efforts to shut down a program protecting about 700,000 young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers.
The court’s liberal justices probed the administration’s justifications for ending the program, expressing skepticism about its rationales for doing so. But other justices, including President Trump’s two appointees, indicated that they would not second-guess the administration’s reasoning and, in any event, considered its explanations sufficient.
“I assume that was a very considered decision,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said of a second set of justifications offered by the administration in a memorandum last year after its decision to end the program was challenged in court.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he saw little point in requiring the administration to come forward with better or more elaborate reasons. “What good would another five years of litigation over the adequacy of that explanation serve?” he asked.
Still, the justices agreed that the young people who signed up for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, were sympathetic and that they and their families, schools and employers had relied on it in good faith. “I hear a lot of facts, sympathetic facts, that you’ve put out there, and they speak to all of us,” Justice Gorsuch said.
And while Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. indicated that the administration was on solid legal footing in saying the program was unlawful, he said the Supreme Court could rule in a humane way, minimizing the hardships people participating in the program would face if it were ended.
“It’s not always the case when the government acts illegally in a way that affects other people,” he said, “that we go back and untangle all of the consequences of that.” The program, he suggested, could be wound down in measured steps.
Chief Justice Roberts added that both the Obama and Trump administrations have said they would not deport people eligible for the program, meaning that the main practical questions if the program is ended would be their ability to work legally, obtain driver’s licenses and the like.
“The whole thing was about work authorization and these other benefits,” the chief justice said. “Both administrations have said they’re not going to deport the people.” (Continues)
What’s wrong with deporting the DACAs? It’s a free ride home.
Think of all the wonderful diversity they could experience in their own countries. Some foreigners adjust happily to their true homeland. Anyway, on a planet with seven billion persons, not everyone can relocate to America or Europe. Reforms at home are called for, now more than ever.
Democrats are so desperate to import future liberal voters from abroad that the D-candidates will violate any alleged principles to import as many newbies as possible. The 2020 Democrats have gone off a cliff to be “pro-immigration” by extending the idea of immigrant to include anyone of the world’s nearly 8 billion inhabitants who might decide to move here. Add to that the Democrat promise of free healthcare for all, including illegal aliens, means there is a huge incentive to reach stupid-generous America.
The latest immigration pitch comes from Bernie Sanders who wants to welcome thousands of “climate refugees” to the US which assumes major suffering somewhere on the planet because of extended bad weather, drought or some other regional hiccup. I remain convinced that climate change is often trotted out as a cause of problems that can more properly be attributed to world population growth. Plus, climate change is a flexible enough problem to allow many government-imposed solutions, definitely a plus for Democrats.
Tucker Carlson examined the ramifications of Bernie’s plan for “climate migrants” on his Monday show.
Top Democrats claim to believe in climate change as a big problem that is worsened by the United States, yet they want to increase America’s population substantially by immigration. Go figure.
TUCKER CARLSON: Well a couple years ago, Bernie Sanders described open borders as a Koch brothers proposal because it is literally a Koch brothers proposal — it’s a libertarian idea — he was right. Mass migration reduces wages for low-skilled workers but now Sanders has changed his mind. His campaign has released an immigration proposal that reads like something the Koch brothers would write: it would halt deportation or abolish enforcement of our borders, abolish ICE and create a new category for something called “climate migrants.”
Justin Haskins is a research fellow at the Heartland Institute. He joins us tonight to explain what a climate migrant might be, and more pressingly, Justin, why would a climate migrant have a right to come to my country?
JUSTIN HASKINS: Well apparently climate migrants, which I don’t even think are a real thing, are essentially a category of people from third world countries, from developing nations, who are so supposedly suffering as a result of climate change, man-caused climate change.
Now, I don’t believe that anybody is actually suffering from man-caused climate change, but Bernie Sanders’ proposal would have 50,000 people, 50,000 at minimum, come to the United States from around the world, who are suffering from climate change, supposedly, in just the first year — and over the course of his presidency, hundreds of thousands of people, because supposedly this is good for climate justice or something along those lines.
But the most bizarre part of all of this is that I thought, according to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and everybody else in the socialist left, that human beings are causing climate change, that humans’ CO2 emissions, that that’s what’s causing climate change, and it’s going to be catastrophic.
Well, if that’s true, then why are we bringing people from all over the world where they produce CO2 emissions less per person, in places like Mexico and Guatemala and places like that, why are we bringing them to the United States where we produce CO2 emissions per person at a much higher rate? It doesn’t make any sense.
CARLSON: And also, if you cared about the environment, which I personally do emphatically care, and actually go outside once in a while, unlike most people on the left — why would you want a crowded country? Continue reading this article
The book got my attention in particular about how insane it is to continue immigrating millions of low-skilled foreigners when many of the jobs they take will be obsolete for human workers in just a few years.
The word is gradually getting out that the technology of robots, automation and AI needs attention for the threat it poses, although today’s booming economy makes that future easy to ignore.
Sunday’s edition of The Hill contained an opinion piece by Martin Ford meant to be a reminder of the changes the world faces from this technology.
AI and automation will disrupt our world — but only Andrew Yang is warning about it, The Hill, November 10, 2019
Disruption of the job market and the economy from automation and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the primary ideas animating Andrew Yang’s surprising campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. Alone among the candidates, Yang is directly engaging with one of the central forces that will shape our futures.
Over the past ten years, I have written two books on the subject of artificial intelligence and its impact on the job market and the economy. I’ve spoken at dozens of events in more than 30 countries. The majority of my presentations were given to what you might call elite audiences — executives, technologists, Wall Street financiers, economists, government technocrats and so forth. I’ve found that, virtually without exception, these people take the specter of technological disruption seriously.
To be sure, not everyone buys into the possibility of widespread unemployment resulting from automation. But even the most skeptical generally recognize that the speed at which AI is advancing could create a stark divide, with a large and growing fraction of our workforce left struggling to maintain a foothold in the economy.
A recent report from the consulting firm Deloitte found that, among more than a thousand surveyed American executives, 63 percent agreed with the statement that “to cut costs, my company wants to automate as many jobs as possible using AI,” and 36 percent already believe that job losses from AI-enabled automation should be viewed as an ethical issue. In other words, while media pundits dismiss worries about automation, executives at America’s largest companies are actively planning for it. Continue reading this article
The front page of Thursday’s Los Angeles Times included a notice of how California has become increasingly unfriendly to conservative-minded residents who are leaving in the thousands — the newspaper headline was Leaving California for ‘Redder Pastures.’ The piece began with a description of a retired couple, Judy and Richard Stark, who packed it all up for a move to McKinney, Texas, north of Dallas. The two conservatives were tired of the liberal politics as well as policies that welcomed illegal immigration.
It makes sense then that California has teetered on the brink of a 40 million population for a while, but it hasn’t gotten there because the illegal aliens flowing in have been balanced by the citizens escaping. Still, it’s pretty amazing that nearly 700,000 left the once desirable state in 2018.
A Fox show noticed the same article and discussed the big picture. Economist Steve Moore asked, “How do you screw up California? Beautiful weather, beautiful mountains, the technology capital of the world, and yet I just have to say, the high taxes, the high regulation, the high housing costs are just driving middle class people out. And by the way, it’s the middle class that’s leaving, so California’s becoming a state of super rich people who live in Silicon Valley and very poor people and homeless people who live in the cities. It’s a sad situation.”
California residents leave for many reasons, like the aforementioned high taxes, crushing traffic, skyrocketing cost of housing — and also to escape demographic changes that tear at the cultural fabric.
The Volkswagen SUV whizzed past the Texas state line, a U-Haul trailer in tow, as it made its way toward Amarillo.
“Yay!” Judy Stark cried out to her husband, Richard, as they officially left California. The pair bobbed their heads to ’50s music playing on the radio.
Like many other Republican and conservative voters in California, the retired couple have decided to leave the state. A major reason, Stark and her spouse say, is their disenchantment with deep-blue California’s liberal political culture.
Despite spending most of their lives in the Golden State, they were fed up with high taxes, lukewarm support for local law enforcement, and policies they believe have thrown open the doors to illegal immigration.
Just over half of California’s registered voters have considered leaving the state, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll conducted for the Los Angeles Times. Republicans and conservative voters were nearly three times as likely as their Democratic or liberal counterparts to seriously have considered moving — 40% compared with 14%, the poll found. Conservatives mentioned taxes and California’s political culture as a reason for leaving more frequently than they cited the state’s soaring housing costs.
Stark and her husband decided it was time to put their Modesto home up for sale about six months ago. After doing some research online, she came across the website Conservative Move, which, as its name suggests, helps conservatives in California relocate from liberal states to redder ones, such as Texas and Idaho.
Pulled over at a Pilot truck stop just outside Amarillo, Stark said she was excited to be hours from their final destination, Collin County, near Dallas. The pair purchased a newly constructed three-bedroom home in McKinney for about $300,000. In much of California, Stark said, a similar home would run about twice as much. (Continues)
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
A Guatemalan woman who was deported after serving eight years in prison on felony charges stemming from a 2008 fatal crash with a school bus in Cottonwood, Minn., was arrested Tuesday by immigration authorities for illegally re-entering the country.
