Hundreds of Hondurans have gathered in the city of San Pedro Sula with plans to make their way north toward the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigration authorities in Guatemala have warned that around 1,1000 migrants on buses were headed toward the two countries common border.
The migrants composing the newly formed caravan have told reporters that President Donald Trump’s threat to seal the United States southern border wouldn’t hinder their efforts to make it to the U.S. Many say that they are unable to support their families in Honduras, so they decided to join the caravan, hoping to have more opportunities in the U.S.
According to the Associated Press, a woman by the name of Nohemy Reyes who waited at the bus stop with one of her five kids, said that her country’s economic situation was causing her to head north.
“The economic situation is very difficult,” she told AP reporters. But if she finds that the border is closed upon her arrival at the U.S.’s southern border, she said that she would return to Honduras.
Another migrant in the caravan told a reporter from CNN: “I’m not afraid. When you set yourself a goal and you trust in God then you do everything to get there and in my case, my goal is to get to the US.”
According to Mexico’s immigration authority, the National Migration Institute, a group of 350 Central American migrants from another caravan of 2,500 strong – this time from Guatemala – forced their way into Mexico on Friday. A spokesman from the National Migration Institute stated, “With an aggressive attitude, the migrants broke the padlock on the border gate and entered the country.” The group clashed violently with local police in Metapa de Dominguez – a town in southern Mexico – after crossing the border from Guatemala.
More than once, President Trump has warned migrants attempting to reach the southern border of the United States from Central America and Mexico to stop forming caravans. Trump has even ordered the suspension of all U.S. foreign aid to Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala – the states from which the vast majority of migrants in caravans are originating from.
But neither of these actions have helped to stem the unrelenting tide of migrants.
Meanwhile, United States border facilities and immigration services are swamped with Central American and Mexican migrants. Officials have described the migrant crisis as being close to reaching a breaking point.
This week, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that more than 103,000 migrants were apprehended or deemed ‘inadmissible’ in the month of March – up nearly 77,000 from February.
With the newest caravans from Honduras and Guatemala already on their way, the U.S. can only expect the numbers to increase and the strain on the immigration system to worsen.
Charges have been dropped against a woman who attacked White House top aide, Kellyanne Conway.
The Maryland woman, Mary Elizabeth Inabinett, 63, was originally charged with assaulting White House counselor Kellyanne Conway during a confrontation last year at a restaurant in a Washington suburb. Inabinett’s trial was scheduled to start Monday morning in Montgomery County, Maryland. Instead, a county prosecutor asked a judge to dismiss the charges.
Police had charged Inabinett last November with second-degree assault and disorderly conduct.
Conway declined to comment on the dismissal.
According to Fox News, Conway had told police she was attending a birthday party with her teenage daughter at a Mexican restaurant in Bethesda, Maryland, last October when she felt somebody grab her shoulders from behind and shake her. The woman who confronted Conway yelled, “Shame on you” and “other comments believed to be about Conway’s political views,” according to a charging document prepared by Montgomery County police.
According to the court documents, Conway suffered no injuries in the incident.
Montgomery County prosecutor Kathy Knight said Inabinett sent Conway a letter apologizing for the incident. “She has apologized for choosing this time and place to vent her political views,” Knight said. “That was inappropriate.”
Knight noted Inabinett had never been arrested for a crime before.
Ramon Korionoff, a spokesman for the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office said dropping the charges is “the best resolution for this particular set of circumstances.”
Maraya Pratt, an attorney for Inabinett, said Monday that she couldn’t immediately comment. Another attorney for Inabinett, William Alden McDaniel, Jr., said in a statement in February that his client didn’t assault Conway and was merely exercising her right to express her personal opinions about a public figure in a public place.
While Conway did not comment on the dismissal, in an earlier interview with CNN after the incident, she said she was standing next to her middle school-aged daughter and some of her daughter’s friends when the woman began shaking her “to the point where I thought maybe somebody was hugging me.” She said it felt “weird” and “a little aggressive,” so she turned around to face the woman.
“She was just unhinged. She was out of control,” she said. “Her whole face was terror and anger.”
According to the Associated Press, the restaurant’s manager told police the woman who confronted Conway had to be forcibly removed from the premises. Conway told police the woman yelled and gestured at her for 8 to 10 minutes before she was escorted out of the restaurant. Conway’s daughter provided officers with a short video clip and photograph of the encounter.
If one assumes that the overwhelming number of Jews have deep concerns about Israel, you will not understand why so many remain silent in the face of the rising tide of Israeli-bashing anti-Semitism within the Democratic Party.
For many Jews, Israel is the international bulwark of Judaism – the first line of defense in a world where Jews had suffered prejudice and persecution for 2000 years. While World War II resulted in the defeat of the fascist regimes and their Arian racial theology, it did not obliterate anti-Semitism. Though it no longer exists as an institutional government policy in most nations – excluding the obvious Muslim-majority nations — it survives in the underbelly of national cultures throughout much of the world. Anti-Semitism remains in the hearts of social malcontents and psychopaths even in America.
We are repeatedly reminded of that fact by the hateful events that have come to be known by their geographical names, such as Charlottesville and Squirrel Hill. We have seen it in so-called neo-Nazi demonstrations and the random acts of violence that pop up like weeds in the national garden. Internationally, we know the names of anti-Semitism as Dachau, Auschwitz, and Buchenwald.
While virtually every Jew disdains anti-Semitism, a rather large percentage of American Jews are not defenders of Israel – especially the government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu these past 12 years. Many could not care less where the United States embassy is located. They do not see the retention of the Golan Heights as permanent Israeli real estate as an imperative. Many see Netanyahu as an obstacle to Middle East peace.
In many ways, Jews of that frame of mind place radical left-wing domestic American politics above the longstanding alliance with Israel. They are social liberals to the edge of socialism – and many over the edge.
They tend to be Jewish in the spirit of Senator Bernie Sanders. In a recent television appearance, he refused to call out Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for her provocative – and by some measure – anti-Semitic remarks. Sanders will not confront those who favor the Boycott, Divestiture and Sanction (BDS) Movement against Israel. BDS is more what Israel should expect from sworn world enemies – not allies, and certainly not from members of Congress, such as Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.
The rising tide of anti-Israel sentiment among Democrats in Congress has exposed a schism in Jewish thinking in terms of Israel. Omar is wrong to suggest that those who recognized the importance of America’s alliance with Israel have dual loyalties. The Israeli-American alliance is critical in almost every way. It is our strongest ally in the Middle East in terms of national security (that means military), diplomacy, business and as the only truly democratic republic in the region.
But when it comes to having Israel’s back, do not count on a 100 percent commitment from the American Jewish community.
So, there ‘tis.
The vast majority of “asylum seekers” are here illegally. That is not the narrative that Democrats and the left-wing propaganda press is pressing. They say that when a person crosses our border – through points of entry or by pole vaulting border walls (where they might exist) – they can LEGALLY request asylum and remain in the United States until their request is adjudicated. That is the meaning of “catch and release.” What is missing is the expeditious vetting process. Given the numbers of border crossers and the loooooong delays between entering and court hearings, there essentially is no vetting.
That means that anyone – with the exception of a relatively few known criminals – who claims to be endangered back home gets admitted. There is no requirement of proof. By the Democrats misrepresentation of the law, most of the 26 million folks who reside in America without official approval are LEGAL – a least by their strained definition.
That is simply not true. First of all, the millions who never showed up for their vetting hearing are automatically ILLEGAL. Second, all those who came here with legal visas – workers, students, visitors – and did not leave are also ILLEGAL. As Democrats like to point out, those overstaying visas comprise a high percentage of the illegals in this country.
So, what about the hundreds of thousands – maybe now millions – claiming asylum?
Based on history and current statistics, most of them are NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ASYLUM. This is the dirty little secret that Democrats and their media friends do not like to discuss or report. Over the longer period, the actual records show that up to 80 percent of those requesting asylum are ineligible. Think about that. Democrats do not care if the folks claiming asylum are even eligible.
Current numbers at the border show that 76 percent of those from Honduras who are seeking asylum are not eligible. That is true of 75 percent coming from Guatemala, 68 percent from El Salvatore and 61 percent from Mexico.
Some of those folks may have been misled into believing that anyone crossing the U.S. border and claiming asylum is automatically accepted. And why not? Democrats and the new media have been pushing that false narrative 24/7.
Many asylum seekers have been coached to make false claims and for another large group their requests are simply fraudulent. Technically, anyone in America today who is not eligible for asylum is an illegal alien.
In a previous public life – before his political lobotomy – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, railed against the very illegal border crossing that he now claims is neither illegal nor a crisis. In an earlier speech ignored by the liberal news media, Schumer blasted the use of the word “undocumented.” He emphatically insisted that we call them … “illegal aliens.”
What is going on at our border is a multifaceted crisis. It is a human crisis because tens of thousands of people are suffering and many dying on the trail to the border, and by crimes against Americans committed by the criminal element who use the caravans as a modern-day Trojan Horse.
It is a political crisis because it has kept our leaders impotently divided on the issue for generations. The failure to recognize the problem and to fix it has a very simple cause. Both Republicans and Democrats in Washington have used immigration as a political weapon – and neither side wants to give up that partisan political weapon for the sake of the country.
President Reagan made a run at it and offered amnesty in return for border security. Congressional Democrats approved of the amnesty but reneged on border security. President Clinton made a feeble run at it but gave up in the face of congressional inaction from his own party. Those were the days when most of the top Democrats paid lip service to border security. Their comments in those days sounded like Trump today.
President Obama promised that immigration reform would be his first priority – but he gave it no priority whatsoever throughout his eight years in office. President Trump is the first President to push hard for border security as the first element of immigration reform – trying to avoid what happened to Reagan — but has been rebuffed by Congress in a shameful display of bipartisan inaction. One can fault Trump for his pugnacious style but one cannot say he is not seriously working on the issue of REAL immigration reform.
A prevailing historic theme of left-wing politics has been a general disdain for whatever America was at the moment. There was always and undercurrent of revolution – peaceful or otherwise. As with all big government authoritarian movements, change was based on empowerment through impossible promises and varying degrees of force – not fundamental principles of governance exercised by civil debate in the public forum.
As a form of central planning socialism, the left generally rises from a combination of public greed – wanting things seemingly without the cost or the responsibility of earning – and a faux idealism – believing that such economic generosity is even possible. Wherever left-wing radicalism was successful, the eventual result has been economic collapse with tragic outcomes for the masses it falsely promised to serve.
Such utopianism is an ever-present virus in the body-politic – only to flare up occasionally as a full-blown political malady. We seem to be living in such an era again. The Philistines are upon us – that Philistine Goethe described as a man who, “… not only ignores all conditions of life which are not his own, but also demands that the rest of mankind should fashion its mode of existence after his own.” That is what big government progressivism is all about – controlling and regulating we the people into a “mode of existence” fashioned after their own theories and policies. And that requires concentrated power in the hands of the elitist Philistines.
Progressives generally come onto the scene with a wrecking ball. Their reforms have one fundamental purpose. It is the acquisition of more power in the hands of the few – even when their policies are garbed in the lamb’s skin of granting power to the people.
In this political season, the progressive Philistines are in full force with proposals and plans that run contrary to American traditions, American Exceptionalism and America’s best interests – at least from the standpoint of we the people.
Green New Deal
In the lead for the nuttiest issue is the so-called Green New Deal that seemed to have its genesis from the most radical and ill-informed member of the radical left – Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Like the religious zealot on the street corner warning of the soon-to-come end of the earth, Ocasio Cortez believes our planet will be uninhabitable in … not millennia, not centuries … but in about twelve years. We have a better chance of being hit by a world-ending meteor between now and then than being flooded and starved out of existence by global warming before Ocasio Cortez’ 40th birthday.
To head off her imagined demise of humanity, the Bronx congresswoman suggests that we stop using ANY fossil fuel, cease to use airplanes and a whole range of other Draconian policies. If her Green New Deal was every enacted – and there is little chance of that – humanity would suffer far worse consequences for mankind than a rise in world temperatures.
Still, several Democrat political candidates have embraced the concept of a Green New Deal if not Ocasio Cortez more irrational provisions – but even then, it is just plan nuts.
The idea of paying today’s African Americans for the injustices of slavery that ended more than 150 years ago – not counting the Democratic Parties oppression of blacks in Dixie and the major urban centers. This is nothing less than an ethnic bribe to maintain the political loyalty of the largely oppressed black community.
This shows just how irrational politics can be. The reparation issue would have people who are in no way responsible for slavery, segregation or oppression pay a penalty to people who have no established personal damage from the practice. My ancestors, like many of yours, were not even here during the days of slavery. Many Americans with longer bloodlines on American soil were part of the abolitionist movement.
African Negroes who were harmed by slavery are all dead. Except, perhaps, for blacks who lived in the old solid Democrat segregated southland or in today’s major segregated cities, blacks are not being institutionally oppressed these days. If there is any institution that should pay reparations, the Democratic Party would be the one – and I would not even suggest that.
If you believe that only people who are accountable should be held responsible, you can see that concept being carried out today. In a number of cases where a police officer acted in a racist manner to the point of using inappropriate deadly force, the city governments have had to settle civil suits – pay reparations, if you will.
Native Americans and white Americans were also held in slavery. Will there be reparations for them – even if we could figure out who they were? That does not seem to be part of the plan. If we did not already have the word “pandering,” we would have to coin it to describe the progressive reparations proposal.
Eliminating the Electoral College is political snake oil. If you read the label, it sounds reasonable – a simple devotion to majority rule. But like the snake oil it will do no good and potentially great harm.
Majority rule without the protection of minority views can — and often does — lead to tyranny. The Electoral College prevents a few very large states from dominating presidential elections. It gives representation to the smaller states.
More importantly, it settles our presidential elections and avoids prolonged court cases when the vote is very close. In both 2000 and 2016, we had a legitimate President in the Oval office because of the Electoral College. Without it, we could have had months and even years of court cases contesting the vote count in any number of states. In the meantime, America would be without a constitutional head-of-state.
And even without the Electoral College, we would most certainly have a president who did not receive a majority of the vote. President Lincoln assumed office with less than 40 percent of the popular vote. President Kennedy was declared the winner with slightly less than 50 percent of the vote. President Nixon got only 43 percent in 1968. President Clinton was elected twice with 43 and 49 percent of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996 respectively.
The Electoral College has prevented America from descending into the kind of power battle we see in many other nations.
Dropping the voting age is a raw power play. Democrats – and most everyone else – know that youth tends toward irrational idealism – the sort of mindset to which authoritarians pander. Without life experience, younger people are easily manipulated. That is why the most brutal authoritarians – such as Hitler and Mao — developed “youth corps” through indoctrination.
The problem for the Republic is exacerbated by the fact that the progressives already have too much control and influence over the education systems and the entertainment industry which has inordinate appeal to the youth of America.
This is not about extending the democracy of personal freedom, but of subverting it.
Opposition to voter IDs
You really have to drink the Kool-Aid to buy into this bit of nuttiness. Showing identification is the standard operating procedure in virtually every aspect of American life. You cannot get medical care without it. You cannot enter many government buildings without it. You cannot drive a car without it. You need an ID to be a student in most colleges and universities. You need an ID to make certain purchases – such as liquor or cigarettes. That is why almost every adult American has an official ID.
It would seem that exercising the right to vote would be paramount in proving you are who you say you are. If a person has no other official ID, most voting laws enable them to acquire a special one – usually at no cost.
The left’s opposition to voter IDs is not really a matter of racism, as they claim. It is just that the left historically gains from vote fraud. Yeah. Yeah. I know the left claims there is no such thing as stealing votes – just like all those dictators always claim their elections are totally honest. Uh huh.
As a person who has investigated vote fraud in Chicago, I can say with certainty that it exists as general practice of the Chicago Democrat political machine.
. . . .
To answer the headline question … Is America as crazy as the progressives think? I do not know. In the past, I would have said “no,” but today … not so sure.
So, there ‘tis.
The New York Post has hit back hard with a scathing rebuke of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., following her recent comments on the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
The dramatic front page of the Thursday, April 11 edition featured an infamous photo of New York City’s Twin Towers on fire on the day of the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 Americans. The text accompanying the gut-wrenching image read:
“Rep. Ilhan Omar: 9/11 was ‘some people did something.’”
“Here’s your something: 2,977 people dead by terrorism.”
The bottom of the cover read in small captioning, “Omar outraged the families of 9/11 victims by referring dismissively to the terrorist attacks while speaking to a Muslim lobbying group.”
“Some People Did Something”
The Post was referring to Omar’s recent comments at the Council of American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] fundraiser last month when she called upon other Muslim-Americans to “make people uncomfortable” with their activism. However, another part of the speech surfaced on social media this week in which Omar described the terror attacks perpetrated by Al Qaeda.
“CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” Omar said at the event.
Her comments prompted a response from Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, a former Navy SEAL who lost his right eye after being injured by an IED in Afghanistan.
“First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something,’” Crenshaw wrote in a tweet. “Unbelievable.”
In an editorial that accompanied the striking cover, The Post stated, “Wow. What a way to describe the heinous surprise attack on America that claimed 3,000 lives. Especially when Omar’s focus was Muslim rights. That made it all the more vital to note that the terrorists acted in the name of Islam — as self-described ‘jihadists’ in a war against America, Israel and the West.”
“To call them merely ‘some people’ is to deny a cancer festering in the world Muslim community,” the editorial said.
The editorial went on to further criticize Omar for saying in her speech that there is an expectation that the Muslim community “needs to hide every time something happens.”
“Again, by ‘something happens,’” the editorial states, “she means (but won’t say) when Muslims commit acts of terror, no one expects Muslims to ‘hide’ after an attack by Islamist terrorists. No group should be blamed for the deeds of a few of its members. But defeating terrorism requires facing the facts of who’s behind it and why.”
The editorial also pointed out that CAIR was formed in 1994, NOT after 9-11 as Omar said, and that they have been listed as “an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to steer US funds to the terror group Hamas.”
Omar, who became the first Somali-American elected to Congress in November, appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on Wednesday where her 9/11 comments were not addressed. The freshman congresswoman told the host she was still “learning” after she was accused of making an anti-Semitic remark in February.
“The whole process really has been one of growth for me, right,” she said. “I’m learning that everything is not as simple as we might think. As I’ve said to my constituents and my colleagues, when you tell me that you are pained by something I say, I will always listen and I will acknowledge your pain.”
As a Jew and a former New Yorker, all I can say is “Hey Omar – acknowledge this!”
As the field of Democratic nominees for 2020 continues to grow, enthusiasm for the once wildly popular, Beto O’Rourke may be shrinking.
Once the seemingly heir apparent to Obama’s youth and charismatic charm, O’Rourke saw firsthand what it’s like to be just another presidential candidate during a sleepy town hall event last week as the enthusiasm and star power he sought to generate hit a grounding snag in Iowa.
The former Texas congressman, gave a stump speech to a sparse crowd of fewer than 120 students at the University of Iowa. Even though Beto arrived nearly 30 minutes late, the student union ballroom remained less than half filled as the candidate walked in to give his pitch to families and retirees before taking questions. Given the nature of the questions by the few in attendance, it seemed that many in the audience were far from committed to the presidential hopeful.
Smaller Crowds for Beto Than Expected
A number of attendees remarked to the conservative leaning Washington Examiner that O’Rourke’s crowd was smaller than they anticipated, particularly in a city of 75,000 with a major university. The crowd was less than half the size of audiences drawn by O’Rourke’s rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, at similar events in smaller towns.
Some high school students appeared to have ulterior motives for being there. Julian Wallace, 18, was clad in O’Rourke garb but told the Examiner that he was only wearing it as proof for an extra-credit assignment. His friend Aaron, 17, seemed to be sizing up the competition for his preferred candidate, saying he thought O’Rourke lacked the “big ideas” of former tech executive Andrew Yang.
Others in attendance said they were there just to hear the perspective of other candidates. One woman in the audience asked O’Rourke how he planned to define himself from all the others in the race.
“We’re shopping, we’re open to other candidates. Wanted to see Beto in person,” a woman named Kelly, who was in the crowd with her husband, told the Examiner.
O’Rourke’s campaign didn’t give a final tally, but the crowd appeared to be significantly smaller than those that fellow nomination-seeker Sanders garnered in other towns across eastern Iowa. Several hundred of people crammed into rooms filled to capacity to see the 77-year-old independent senator from Vermont. According to observers at the event, perhaps only as many as 150 at the most listened to O’Rourke speak in Iowa City.
With candidates like South Bend Mayor Peter Buttigieg now leading O’Rourke in the polls, his youth no longer gives him an easy contrast with frontrunners — former Vice President Joe Biden or Senator Sanders. While O’Rourke stresses how he’s constantly learning on the campaign trail, many voters find Buttigieg’s thoughtful style more attractive.
Despite an early rising star, recent surveys of Iowa voters place O’Rourke towards the bottom of declared Democratic candidates, at 5%, according to the Real Clear Politics average. Buttigieg currently leads O’Rourke in the state at 11%, according to a recent Emerson poll.
Iowa will hold the first vote of the 2020 primaries.
A few days ago, Italy’s National Populist Interior Minister and de-facto leader Matteo Salvini made several new additions to his expanding European Parliament alliance, announcing that conservatives, nationalists, and populists from Germany, Denmark, and Finland will join Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) voting bloc.
The National Populist ‘supergroup’ which will be led by the Italian deputy prime minister, now also comprises Alternative for Germany (AfD), the Danish People’s Party, and the True Finns party. According to a report by Il Giornale, Salvini met with key players from all three parties earlier in the week on Monday in the northern Italian city of Milan.
These most recent additions to the populist voting bloc come after the Italian deputy prime minister had already secured the partnerships with France’s National Rally (RN) led by Marine Le Pen and Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ).
Salvini declared that this new collection of National Populists would focus all of their energy on achieving the goal of forming what he called a ‘new Europe’. He also charged EU globalist ‘bureaucrats and do-gooders’ of ‘burying the European dream’.
Ultimately ending mass illegal immigration flowing into the European continent from the Middle East and North Africa is one of the primary pillars of the new group. Each and every party who is a part of the coalition already has anti-mass immigration policies at the forefront of their party’s manifestos.
The existential threat of radical Islamic terror was also stressed during the conference held in Milian, with Salvini stating that “the danger for Europe does not come from the past, but from Islamic terrorism.
Salvini also delivered his position on the European Union’s future relationship with Turkey, saying that Turkey ‘will never be in Europe’.
Peter Kofod, the Danish People’s Party’s chief candidate for the European Parliament had the following to say regarding the summit of conservatives, nationalists, and populists: “We have been thinking a lot about forming a group that more closely unites some of the common interests of national conservative parties… The intention is that after the election, we will start negotiations with a view to forming a new, large group of parties that are similar to us.”
Kofod added, “We want to fight the current EU federalism. EU co-operation can move two ways: There is Macron’s path that goes towards a federal superstate with a social union, common defenses, etc. And then there is the Europe of nations that is about securing the influence and interests of the nation states.”
It’s still unclear as to whether Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who has been suspended from the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) voting bloc, will end up joining the National Populist supergroup. In the past, Orbán hasn’t been shy in expressing his adoration for Matteo Salvini – referring to him as ‘his personal hero’ for his work on reducing mass illegal immigration.
The EU parliament elections are set to take place on May 23rd through the 26th. Leaders throughout the European Union have described it as a historic election that will decide the fate of Europe.
The United States government has expanded its practice of ‘catch and release’ due to its processing and holding centers being overwhelmed with illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America seeking ‘asylum’.
According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, over 125,000 illegal border crossers have been released inside of United States borders since December 21st, 2018. Apparently, immigrants are being bused hundreds of miles inside of US borders and released at churches and Greyhound stations, according to the Associated Press. the Associated Press reported.
Just last week alone, around 9,000 illegals were apprehended in the McAllen area of Texas. That’s on track for 468,000 illegals in one year. The population of McAllen, TX is 142,000 people. This invasion of illegal immigrants represents more than 3X the population.
Relief organizations along the southern border have expressed that a public health crisis is developing and that the basic needs of families are struggling to be met.
Jim Gannon, the executive director and CEO of Catholic Charities in Albuquerque, New Mexico, told the AP, “If this was a hurricane, FEMA would be on the ground helping.”
In past years, migrant ‘asylum seekers’ were typically released and allowed to live with family members or friends until their cases were processed. However, with a record-high number of immigrants crossing the border, immigration and customs officials in the US have warned that the system is close to reaching a breaking point.
Consequently, immigrants have been released in larger numbers and in regions farther removed from the border, AP stated.
Striking videos have surfaced which show human traffickers near Yuma, Arizona, smuggling immigrant families across the US-Mexico border, including through a hole in border fencing, according to a separate report by AP.
According to Jorge Ramas, an open-borders advocate and globalist news anchor from Univision, the solution to the border surge is to simply to legalize illegal immigration, since ‘nobody can really stop them’ from entering the United States, Breitbart News reported earlier in the month.
On Tuesday night, during an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Ramos said, “The U.S. economy has been absorbing them and it seems that we have to realize that the only way to deal with this is in a legal way… “Just to understand that legally they are going to keep coming and there is really nothing we can do to stop them.”
During the same interview, Ramos noted that each year more than 300,000 illegal immigrants have entered US borders for more than a decade now. He insisted that governments of Central America and Mexico ‘are not the immigration police of Donald Trump’.
Trump, rightfully has threatened to shut down the US-Mexico border if Mexico and Central American countries don’t take actions to stop the surge.
Ramos insisted that no matter how much money is spent trying to solve the crisis that governments ‘simply don’t have the power to stop that from becoming reality’.
Meanwhile, in order to handle the unrelenting flow of migrants, US border patrol agents have been transferred to handle immigration duties. This has led to up to 12 hours of gridlock for truck drivers at a number of ports of entry, according to Reuters.
The issue of mass migration into the United States is sure to be a hot issue in the 2020 presidential elections.
Last week, Politico reported that 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and Californian Senator Kamala Harris, introduced a bill that would make the children of illegal immigrant parents, so-called ‘Dreamers’ eligible to work as congressional staffers and interns.
Also last week, on Tuesday, Julián Castro, the former secretary of Housing and Urban Development, announced a plan to reform immigration enforcement and to forge a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Governments in the Western world must have the political will to stop the migrant invasion. Right now, the only head of state in the world who possesses the political will to stop any and all forms illegal immigration is Italy’s, Matteo Salvini. Salvini has stopped nearly 99% of all illegal immigrants from entering Italy’s borders since he has assumed office.
Trump would be smart to take a page or two out of Salvini’s playbook.
On first blush, I expect most Americans would look at the headline and say, “Are you kidding?” Well … sort of, but not entirely.
I have always had total disdain for the National Enquirer and all those other fake news tabloids that you see at the check-out counter.
They wallow in the underbelly of journalism – if you are even inclined to place them even on the periphery of the profession. I cannot recall ever buying one and they were never seen in my home.
In hyping their upcoming “Headliner” show on the Enquirer with Ari Melber, MSNBC set the tone of the show by alleging that the Enquirer was “weaponized” by Trump to go on an unrelenting attack against his opponents in the Republican primaries and against Hillary Clinton in the General Election.
According to them, the Enquirer made no attempt to be fair and balanced – or even have a smidgeon of news sympathetic to Trump’s opponents.
MSNBC promised to expose what they see as unrelenting one-side reporting of dubious stories that played to Trump’s favor. In a very real sense, MSNBC contends that David Pecker ran his publication as a propaganda vehicle for the Trump campaign.
Did the Enquirer go all in for Trump in the 2016 campaign? Well duh! Just a perusal of the frontpages – and that is as far as I ever got – made the bias perfectly clear. It was an unabashed Trump publication for sure.
As I watched the MSNBC promos for their look at the Enquirer, that symbolic lightbulb in the head lit up. Imagine, I thought, a self-proclaimed journalistic outfit using their platform to support one side of the political partisan divide. Suddenly, the word “hypocrisy” jumped into my mind.
Doesn’t MSNBC use their platform to support only one side of the political partisan divide? It may be fair to say that the NBC News offspring is not as sensationalistic as the Enquirer.
But maybe – just maybe — they are more dangerous because their service as a propaganda vehicle for the progressive faction of the Democratic Party is less obvious to those in their audience.
Sadly, there are a lot of well-intentioned and good people who are taken in by MSNBC reporting. Some of my closest friends are MSNBC-ophiles. As is typical of so many on the left, they refuse to discuss politics – largely because they cannot defend their positions.
It is that old liberalism being faith-based as opposed to fact-based. Many use anger as a defensive exit from intelligent conversations – you know, that civil dialogue we are supposed to have in a free society.
If a person only reads the Enquirer, they would have a limited and distorted view of reality. I would argue that the same is true of people who only get their news and political information from MSNBC. They are as ill-informed as those who follow the Enquirer.
It is not just a matter of opinion. Anyone who cares to take the effort can empirically establish MSNBC’s bias – and to a lesser extent, CNN’s – can see the biases.
Like it or not, FOX News offers more variety in its news and on controversial topics is more like to have legitimate analysts on both sides of an issue.
That is just an evident fact. You can watch MSNBC all day and hardly find anyone who presents counterpoints to their preconceived partisan narratives – with emphasis on anti-Trumpism and constant attacks on the Republican Brand and conservatives.
If you look only at political bias – as opposed to sensationalism – you will find the MSNBC is as one-sided as Enquirer.
They are, as we say, two peas in a pod. The television networks distorted political narratives are only slightly more credible than the Enquirer’s obvious fake stories. The problem is that the Enquirer is widely recognized as a trash publication that prints outrageously fake news, whereas MSNBC purports to be a legitimate news service – which they are not – and a lot of people actually are taken in by their propaganda.
Think of all those reports claiming that there is evidence that Trump is guilty of Russian collusion. Or all those reports about Trump firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller. All the times they mischaracterize Trump’s statements – which you would not know if you did not surf the other news outlets.
Both the Enquirer and MSNBC are members-in-good-standing of the propaganda press – spinning their false narratives as factual reporting. No objective consumer of news would ever rely on them as a single source – are even a source at all.
So, there ‘tis.