President Trump, in an exclusive interview with “Fox & Friends,” said he will not fire adviser Kellyanne Conway in the wake of a government watchdog’s recommendation that she be removed over violations of the Hatch Act.
“I’m not ganna fire her. I think she’s a terrific person. She’s a tremendous spokesperson,” Trump said.
The Hatch Act limits certain political activities of federal employees. In an explosive report released on June 13, the day before the Fox interview the Office of Special Counsel (which is separate from the office with a similar name previously run by Robert Mueller) cited Conway for repeatedly violating the law with political statements about Democratic presidential candidates in media interviews and on Twitter.
Trump, though, said, “It looks to me like they’re trying to take away her right of free speech.” He even suggested he would not counsel Conway to tone it down.
“It doesn’t work that way,” Trump said, arguing that Conway was merely responding to political attacks against him. “A person wouldn’t be able to express themselves, and I just don’t see it.”
Trump noted that he will be getting a briefing on the findings.
Special Counsel’s Office Defends Its Findings on Conway
Special Counsel Henry Kerner, meanwhile, defended his office’s work in an interview with Fox News. Still, he was deferential to Trump, making clear the decision on whether to fire Conway is his, and his alone to make.
“We respect his decision and, of course, the president has any option he’d like—to reprimand or not to reprimand,” Kerner said. “It is up to the president’s discretion and we respect that.”
In the interview, Kerner said, “I am a Trump appointee—I have no animus toward Kellyanne whatsoever. My job is to make sure the federal workforce stay as depoliticized and as fair as possible.”
Julian Castro Wants Kellyanne Terminated
Meanwhile, former Obama Housing and Urban Development Secretary and current Democratic presidential candidate, Julian Castro, wants to hear those famous two words from Trump regarding Kellyanne – “You’re fired.”
Castro told Fox News that White House adviser Kellyanne Conway should be fired for violating the Hatch Act, which interestingly enough, is the same federal law that Castro himself was found to have violated in 2016.
In 2016, the same office that is now leveling its recommendations at Conway, “concluded that Secretary Castro violated the Hatch Act by advocating for and against Presidential candidates,” the OSC wrote in a letter to Obama. “Secretary Castro’s statements during [a televised] interview impermissibly mixed his personal political views with official agency business despite his efforts to clarify that some answers were being given in his personal capacity.”
Castro was responding to a question from Katie Couric in an interview that focused on HUD policy before pivoting to the then-upcoming 2016 presidential race.
“Now, taking off my HUD hat for a second and just speaking individually, it is very clear that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced, thoughtful, and prepared candidate for president that we have this year,” Castro told Couric.
The Obama White House took no action, and OSC did not recommend Castro’s termination. Castro, pressed by Baier, argued that his case was different from Conway’s, primarily because his violation was an isolated episode and he tried to learn from it.
“Instead of saying, ‘Look, I’m going to take these efforts to make sure that doesn’t happen again,'” Castro said, “she said, ‘To hell with that, I’m going to keep doing it. They said she had repeatedly done that. That’s the difference.”
Trump stands by his support of Conway, insisting that she is merely exercising her right of free speech, and that in each of the incidents in the report, she did not give spontaneous political commentary, but was responding to specific questions from the press about his Democratic rivals. He said, what are you supposed to do [when asked about democratic candidates] say, “‘I can’t answer, I can’t answer’?”
President Trump was pressed by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on whether he sought the removal of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and why he didn’t answer questions from Mueller about obstruction.
At one point during the heated exchange, Trump accused Stephanopoulos of “being a little wise guy” with the line of questioning.
“Wait a minute. I did answer questions. I answered them in writing,” Trump said, after being asked by Stephanopoulos why he would not answer questions in person from Mueller’s investigators.
Stephanopoulos answered, “Not on obstruction.”
To which Trump quipped back, “George, you’re being a little wise guy, OK, which is, you know, typical for you,” Trump said.
“Just so you understand. Very simple. It’s very simple. There was no crime. There was no collusion. The big thing’s collusion. Now, there’s no collusion. That means they set, it was a setup, in my opinion, and I think it’s going to come out.”
McGahn’s Testimony Is Irrelevant
Earlier in the interview, Trump said it “doesn’t matter” that his former White House counsel Don McGahn told Mueller that Trump wanted Mueller removed over an alleged conflict of interest.
“The story on that very simply, No. 1, I was never going to fire Mueller. I never suggested firing Mueller,” Trump said, adding McGahn “may have been confused” when he testified to Mueller.
“I don’t care what he says, it doesn’t matter,” Trump said, prompting Stephanopoulos to ask why McGahn would “lie under oath.”
“Because he wanted to make himself look like a good lawyer,” Trump said, insisting he never said Mueller should be removed.
While both former VP Joe Biden and President Trump were in Iowa on campaign stops, the two do not mince words, hurling barbs at one another from a few miles away.
President Trump unleashed an arsenal of insults at Joe Biden on Tuesday, June 11, as the potential 2020 foes were in Iowa for a series of dueling political events, calling the former vice president “weak mentally” and claiming he hopes to run against him next year.
The President, as he departed the White House on Tuesday for the Hawkeye State, blasted Biden as a “loser” and a “dummy.” This came as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination went on a string of Iowa campaign visits where he repeatedly took swipes at Trump.
Speaking to reporters, the president dismissed Biden’s attacks.
“When a man has to mention my name 76 times in his speech, that means he’s in trouble,” Trump said. “I have to tell you, he’s a different guy. He looks different than he used to, he acts different than he used to–he’s even slower than he used to be.”
“Off the Trash Heap”
“Joe never got more than 1 percent except for when Obama took him off the trash heap,” Trump said, referring to the 2008 Democratic primary. “It looks like his friends from the left are going to overtake him pretty soon.”
Biden, though, is leading the Democratic primary field by double digits in recent national polls. Nevertheless, Trump said he hopes to run against Biden in the 2020 general election.
“I’d rather run against, I think, Biden than anybody,” Trump said. “I think he’s the weakest mentally and I like running against people who are weak mentally.”
Trump, who will be 73 on Friday, has repeatedly said he would “easily” beat Biden in 2020 and has poked fun at the former vice president’s age while giving the 76-year-old new nicknames including “Sleepy Joe” and “1 percent Joe.”
Trump’s comments came ahead of his and Biden’s visit to Iowa on Tuesday. Biden at his own event on Tuesday, criticized Trump’s record with farmers and American families.
“America’s farmers have been crushed by his tariff war with China. No one knows that better than Iowa,” Biden said. “He thinks he’s being tough. Well, it’s easy to be tough when someone else is feeling the pain.”
And Biden asked, “how many farmers across this state and across this nation have had to face the prospect of losing their business, of losing their farm because of Trump’s tariffs?”
The president directly responded to Biden’s attack on Tuesday at the White House, saying he is “the best thing that has ever happened to farmers.”
“Nobody has treated farmers better than Trump,” he said. “The farmers are my best friend.”
Trump went on to blast Biden, a former vice president and a former senator from Delaware for almost four decades, as “a dummy” over his past remarks about China not being a “competitor” for the United States.
“Joe Biden thought China was not a competitor. Biden is a dummy. Joe Biden thought China was not a competitor of ours,” Trump said, claiming that China “ate our country alive during Obama and Biden.”
It sounds like Trump is already running against Biden, and if these comments are any indication, should Biden get the nomination, it seems like it is going to be a nasty scrap between these two, one that might just end up “behind the woodshed,” as Biden once threatened!
While American sit on the edge of their seats wondering whether House Democrats will go forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump, most American’s say that they expect that Trump will win re-election in 2020, according to a poll released last week.
The CNN poll conducted by SSRS revealed that 54% of Americans – including those who disapprove of his performance as president – believed that Trump would likely win in next year’s 2020 election. Just 41% of those polled said that they expect him to lose. This most recent number represents a considerable shift from last December when 51% of people said they believed Trump would be defeated in 2020.
The shift comes mostly from individuals who disapprove of the president. Last week’s poll also revealed that 67% of those who disapprove of the president said they thought he would lose –down from 81% of individuals from the same cohort who were polled seven months ago.
Although the Democrat’s desire to defeat Trump in 2020 certainly isn’t lacking in its voracity, many younger Democrats have expressed that they’re concerned more about policy issues of the Democratic presidential candidate.
In an entirely different poll that was also released last week – this time by Public Policy Institute of California – 48% of Democrats and left-leaning voters in California stated that it’s more important to vote for candidate who’s likely to defeat Trump, whereas 42% said that choosing a candidate whose views closely match their own is most important.
Of the individuals polled who were between 18 and 44 years-old, 51% reported having a preference for candidates who holds similar views to their own, compared to 52%
Of those ages 18 to 44, 51% said they would prefer a candidate with similar views, compared to 52% of those 45 and over who said they prefer a candidate who has the best chance at defeating Trump.
While Democrats are starkly split along age lines and by policy preferences, it remains entirely unclear as to whether it will affect voter turnout in the general election. Currently, former Vice President Joe Biden remains at the front of the pack among Democratic presidential hopefuls. Biden, who’s clearly to the right of candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders, represents the Democratic party’s center-left, establishment wing.
Meanwhile – despite a growing economy – President Trump continues to garner low job performance ratings. According to the CNN/SSRS poll, those who disapprove of Trump cite his behavior as the reason why. The top reasons for disproval were lying at 13%, incompetence at 11%, and racism at 11%.
Freshman democratic congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has been “schooled” by an FBI counterterrorism official after she suggested that white supremacists are getting a pass by the agency.
Earlier this week the controversial representative from New York, incorrectly suggested Muslims get charged with terrorism because they are treated as foreign, while white supremacists get “off the hook.”
AOC used a hearing on Tuesday to suggest that Muslims are being treated differently in the U.S., including getting charged with terrorism for criminal acts, while white supremacist attackers avoid being charged with “domestic terrorism” for similar crimes.
Michael McGarrity, the assistant director of the Counterterrorism Division of the FBI, set the record straight for the freshman Democrat, explaining that the authorities can’t charge people with a “domestic terrorism” charge simply because such a charge does not exist in U.S. laws.
“You’re using the word ‘charge,’ as I said before there’s no domestic terrorism charge like 18 USC § 2339 ABCD for a foreign terrorist organization,” McGarrity explained. “What we do both on the international terrorism side with the homegrown violent extremists and domestic terrorism, we’ll use any tool in the toolkit to arrest them,” McGarrity said.
There Is No Statute for “Domestic Terrorism”
“You’re not going to find an actual charge of domestic terrorism out there if you look at Title 18, McGarrity added after repeated questioning by the Democrat.
Ocasio-Cortez went on to point to the San Bernardino shooting or the Orlando pulse nightclub shooting as specific cases where the perpetrators were “charged as domestic terrorist incidents,” a claim that McGarrity clarified as incorrect.
“So, because the perpetrator was Muslim they’re — doesn’t it seem that because the perpetrator is Muslim that the designation would say it’s a foreign organization?” Ocasio-Cortez asked during the hearing.
According to ABC News, which detailed how Ocasio-Cortez conflated two different terms — in neither of the two cases she referred to were the perpetrators “charged” as “domestic terrorists” and were instead charged as “homegrown violent extremists,” a term given to criminals in the U.S. who draw inspiration from “foreign terrorist organizations” such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda.
By the same token, and under current law, white supremacist attackers could be charged as “homegrown violent extremists” as long as they are tied to a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the U.S. government, though no such case has ever been found.
No white supremacist attackers have been charged with “domestic terror” simply because such a term does not exist in US law. As a lawmaker, one would think a Congresswoman would know that. Where appropriate, such attackers have been charged with, and convicted of “hate crimes.”
As AOC again tried to say that the perpetrators in the Pulse and San Bernardino attacks, where branded “domestic terrorists” simply because they were Muslims, McGarrity again tried to correct her.
“No, that is not correct, that is not correct,” McGarrity responded, adding that the law doesn’t differentiate between religions while noting that the FBI would normally classify those radicalized by the global Jihad as foreign terrorists.
“Some of the definitions I think we’re using, we’re talking past each other,” McGarrity added.
Although being corrected by FBI officials several times, it seems that AOC still didn’t get it, and would not let go of her incorrect narrative, taking a victory lap on social media, saying “First the FBI witness tried to say I was wrong. I tried to be generous + give benefit of doubt, but then we checked. I wasn’t.”
“Violence by Muslims is routinely treated as ‘terrorism,’ White Supremacist violence isn’t. Neo-Nazis are getting off the hook,” she added.
However, she failed to cite the information she “checked” and how the FBI official was wrong during the hearing.
One of the main time and space fillers for the liberal media is the seemingly constant release and prejudicial analysis of polling numbers on President Trump. I suddenly realized that those updates have recently become conspicuous by their absence in the leading anti-Trump news(?) programs. It got me to thinking … and doing a little research.
Just as I suspected. Trump’s numbers have had a bit of an upswing in recent days.
According to the most recent Harvard-Harris Poll, Trump’s approval rating among registered voters has hit 48 percent – a two-year high. The recent Rasmussen Poll showed similar results. Contrary to what one might believe from news reporting, Trump gets a 50 percent approval rating among Hispanics in some of the polls. In terms of favorable versus unfavorable, Trump is on top. While there is a long way to November of 2020, these are the kinds of numbers that get incumbent presidents re-elected.
The fact that Trump’s numbers improve even as the Democrats and the anti-Trump news media are mounting increasing and unprecedented hostile attacks on a daily basis must be very disturbing to the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement. It is reminiscent of the 2016 election, when the media allowed their biases and hatred to completely misreport the potential outcome of the election. Remember how they confidently stated and re-stated that Trump had “no path to the presidency?” And remember how they spent two-years reporting with certainty that Trump was guilty of criminally colluding with Russia? Well, they are doing it again.
The east coast bubble-encased news media has been proffering narratives of all sorts of criminality associated with Trump. It is the New York Southern District federal courts that are going to get him. Virtually every paid pundit on MSNBC has opined that Trump has committed all sorts of crime – and their proof is highly spun bits of information, outright disinformation and wishful thinking.
Even as the Democrats move closer and closer to impeachment and those panels of parroting pundits are clamoring for impeachment like political vigilantes, Trump’s numbers go up. There is a message in all that, but the Democrats and the press do not seem to be listening. Despite the failures in the past, they cling to the belief that their mendacious reporting will fool the American people.
It may just be that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the last Democrat with a grip on reality – and isn’t that a scary thought? She is talking tough to assuage her increasingly radical base, but she is not buying into impeachment. Maybe she read the polls and understand what they mean. It seems the more the radical left calls for impeachment, the more popular the President gets. We have seen this movie before.
In addition to the popularity polls, other recent polls show that more than half of Americans oppose impeachment or have no opinion. Only about one-third support impeaching Trump. Furthermore, 57 percent believe that all the investigations interfere with government business. That was the sentiment of half the Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans.
It is almost humorous to watch Democrat after Democrat appear on television saying that focusing on issues important to the voters is more important that obsessing on Trump – and then they proceed to obsess on Trump.
The media and the impeachment-istas are recreating 2016. They are offering the American people every certainty and every assurance that President Trump will be removed from office – either by impeachment or defeat in 2020. They claim that Trump will be indicted, convicted and imprisoned once he no longer is protected by the Justice Department rule preventing sitting presidents from being indicted.
They spin the Mueller Reports’ failure to reach a conclusion on Obstruction of Justice as hardcore evidence that Trump is guilty of obstructions. They even claim that despite Mueller’s vindication of Trump and his campaign of criminal collusion with Russia, Trump and his people are guilty of criminal collusion.
And still Trump’s favorable rating improves.
President Lincoln wisely noted, you cannot fool all the people all the time. It just may be that the radical extremist Democrats and their allies in the newsrooms have run out of “fooling time.”
So, there ‘tis.
It was recently announced that defrocked attorney John Dean has accepted an invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on matters relating to … uh … Actually, it is not clear as to what relevant information Dean can provide other then his obvious disdain for President Trump – as evidenced in his frequent appearances on CNN and MSNBC.
Unless you are hooked on one of the anti-Trump cable news networks, you are likely to have no idea who this John Dean is or why his opinions matter. Even if you are familiar with his ubiquitious appearances, you may not know his history. I am aware of all of the above because I had a passing acquaintanceship with Dean when we were both working for the Nixon White House – little more than an occasional nod as we passed in the hallway.
Though Dean lacks substantive value to anything going on before Congress these days, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler sees political value in putting Dean in front of the cameras. That is what it is really about – the cameras. There is no information or insight that Dean can provide the Judiciary Committee that they do not already know – and even that is largely irrelevant to their legislative purpose. Nadler’s scheme is to essentially misuse the investigative process (no surprise there) to create a bit of an anti-Trump dog and pony show.
Dean staked his claim to fame more than 45 years ago when, as White House counsel, he testified against President Nixon in return for getting a lighter sentence for his role in the events surrounding the Watergate burglary by operatives of the President’s re-election campaign and then help orchestrate the cover-up that ultimately ended the Nixon presidency.
Dean had participated in meetings in which plans were made to break in and surveil the Democratic National Committee. When the “burglars” were arrested, Dean proceeded to gather and destroy evidence that tied the break-in to key individuals in the Nixon White House – including Attorney General John Mitchell. He paid hush money to those arrested in the break-in to obtain their silence.
Dean appeared several times before the grand jury – taking the Fifth Amendment for every question. He sought an immunity from prosecutions (a pardon) from Nixon for any crimes he may have (did) committed while serving as White House counsel. Nixon refused, and that is when Dean cut a deal with prosecutors.
Dean was originally sentenced to one to four years in prison in return for his cooperation. That was further reduced to time served in a safe house holding facility – which meant he officially served only four months.
Dean was really one of the bad guys in the entire scenario. He avoided his just desserts by taking a plea agreement and flipping on the President. In many ways, Dean was the sleazy Michael Cohen of his day. Prior to his White House job, Dean had worked for the then-powerful Washington law firm of Welch & Morgan. He was fired for conflict-of-interest when he attempted to negotiate a television broadcast license for himself when he was representing a client seeking the license.
Following his incarceration, Dean began a new career in the investment business and entered the world of political oblivion for decades. Thanks to his willingness to become an unabashed Trump critic, and his role in bringing down a President, the anti-Trump media brought Dean back into at least the edge of the public spotlight – where he could serve as one of the paid parroting panelists. That is where he appears to have attracted Nadler’s attention.
Nadler’s entire strategy with Dean appears to be designed to draw comparisons between the disgraced Richard Nixon and Trump – even though the comparisons are minuscule and largely irrelevant. This is such an obvious shabby political tactic that even some of those in the left-wing media are scratching their heads – wondering what value Dean brings to the table. The answer is little to none – only if you are looking at political value – and even then, the tactic is too obvious to have much impact.
In providing a platform for a guy who has nothing to say except what happened more than 45 years ago suggests that Nadler and the Democrats are getting desperate in their effort to swing public opinion in favor of impeachment.
So, there ‘tis.
According to former Massachusetts Governor, and current Republican presidential challenger to Donald Trump, William Weld, the president will not willingly leave the White House if he does not win the re-election in 2020.
Weld made the unusual comment during a recent broadcast of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher asked the former governor directly, “If Trump loses, do you think he’ll leave?”
“Not voluntarily,” said Weld. “He’ll have a run at saying, ‘It was a rigged game so I’m not leaving.’ I don’t think the military and indeed even the Justice Department — the rank-and-file, the investigative agencies — would stand for that in this country.”
Maher (as is this reporter!) laughed at this notion that the existing system of government couldn’t prevent the president from refusing to admit defeat, “But we’ve said that about everything so far! As he becomes more and more a dictator, we go ‘That would never happen, they would never stand for that’” and yet they do.
Weld, who in addition to being Massachusetts’ former governor, was the 2016 Libertarian VP pick, replied, “It’s very obvious that he wants to be what the people who wrote the Constitution were hell-bent to avoid, which is a king. He loves autocrats and he consorts with them and he says a free press is the enemy of the people…” He says “’We just can’t have these restrictions on me. I’m not gonna play. If anyone’s investigating me, I’m not gonna engage with Congress.’ What could be a more obvious violation of his oath of office?”
Weld’s Comments Don’t Hold Water
To give Weld his due, Trump himself has joked about remaining in office past the two-term limit mark on more than one occasion. For instance, after Chinese President Xi Jinping got rid of term limits, Trump reportedly said, “He’s now president for life. President for life….And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.”
However, in November 2018, the president told Fox News’ Chris Wallace that he had no intention of trying to remove presidential term limits in the U.S.
“I think the eight-year limit is a good thing, not a bad thing,” said Trump.
This is not the first “whackydoodle” comment Weld has made about Trump since announcing himself as the sole Republican challenger it his re-election bid. At a recent event at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, Weld practically called the president of the US a Nazi, by saying that he believes that Trump would prefer it if the US was an “Aryan Nation.”
“I celebrate that America has always been a melting pot. It seems he [Trump] would prefer an Aryan nation. I know that sounds strong and tough but he’s very interested in bloodlines and it has resonance,” Weld said.
Weld later tried to walk back the comments by saying he meant that he believes that Trump would prefer it if the US was “a nation with no immigrants whatsoever.”
According to a letter from Mexico’s President to U.S. President Donald Trump, poor migrants from 3rd world countries have the moral right make the United States their home.
In the angry letter, Mexico’s President Andrés López Obrador also excused Trump of turning the United States into an anti-immigrant country ‘overnight’.
The letter comes on the heels of President Trump’s announcement that he would levy a five percent blanket tariff on Mexican goods beginning in early June – a tariff that would gradually increase until the Mexican government takes action to stop the sustained illegal immigration spike.
“If Mexico still has not taken action to dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States, Tariffs will be increased to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019,” Trump said in a statement.
Obrador’s letter, which he posted to Twitter, asserted a migrant’s ‘right for justice,’ saying, “President Trump. Social problems are not resolved by taxes or coercive measures. How do you transform the country of fraternity for the world’s migrants into a ghetto, a closed space, where migrants are stigmatized, mistreated, persecuted, expelled and the right for justice is canceled to those who tirelessly seek to live free of misery?”
The scathing letter also seemed to assert that impoverished Mexicans also have the moral right to make the United States their home.
“It is worth remembering that, within a short period of time, Mexicans will not need to migrate into the United States and that migration will become optional, not compulsory,” Obrador wrote.
Instead of formally accepting or rejecting President Trump’s demand that the Mexican government takes action to block the vast numbers of Central Americans migrating into the U.S., the Mexican president repeatedly claimed the poor people simply have the right to move into the U.S. The letter also failed to denounce Trump’s threat to impose new tariffs on Mexico.
In one portion of the letter, Obrador appropriates the Statue of Liberty as an apparent symbol of both legal and illegal migration, saying, “The Statue of Liberty is not an empty symbol.”
In actuality, the Statue of Liberty was constructed to display to other nations how America’s culture and its Constitution has helped to develop flourishing democratic society. Regardless of that fact, progressive neoliberals continue to argue that the statue should be viewed as a symbolic invitation to migrants from all over the world.
Since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was instituted – a law which drastically loosened the country’s immigration laws – the U.S. population of citizens with Mexican ancestry and illegal immigrants has exploded to 30 million. That enormous population delivers roughly $30 billion in remittances to Mexico every single year.
But it’s not just foreign heads of state who would like to see the United States continue to be weakened via mass immigration from the third world. Unfortunately, there are many influential voices within the United States who make the claim that Americans’ homeland is a nation of and for immigrants – not a homeland for 280 million American-born citizens and their children.
In 2018, when speaking to an Indian audience, Republican in Name Only Nikki Haley had this to say: “The one thing about America and what I have always loved is America is a country of immigrants. It’s the fabric of America to have multiple cultures. Multiple populations. Multiple heritages that do come into America that make it what it is.”
From the other side of the aisle, Senator Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate asserted in February of last year that “rejecting the notion that we are a nation of immigrants [is] to deny our birthright as a nation … to really defy who we are, what we are and what we will be.”
Durbin also regurgitated the age-old lie globalists continue to propagate to the detriment of the societies in which they rule over when he declared, “We have a diverse nation, and that is our strength as far as I’m concerned.”
In contrast to globalist Democrat and Republican politicians, President Trump has continually argued that America is for Americans. In his letter which announced the new tariff threat, he said:
“As everyone knows, the United States of America has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of people coming through Mexico and entering our country illegally. This sustained influx of illegal aliens has profound consequences on every aspect of our national life—overwhelming our schools, overcrowding our hospitals, draining our welfare system, and causing untold amounts of crime. Gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal drugs and narcotics of all kinds are pouring across the Southern Border and directly into our communities. Thousands of innocent lives are taken every year as a result of this lawless chaos. It must end NOW!”
The current situation is deeply unfair and immoral to the American worker and taxpayer, who end up bearing the extraordinary financial cost imposed via mass immigration.
Each year, the federal government imports around 1.1 million legal immigrants and renew a resident population of about 1.5 million white-collar visa workers and approximately half a million blue-collar visa workers.
In addition to that, the government hands out over a million work permits for foreign nationals, tolerates around eight million illegal workers, and fails to punish business who employ illegal migrants.
Policies like these not only decrease wages by flooding the labor market with cheap, foreign-born, white-collar workers and blue-collar laborers, but also transfers vast amounts of wealth from young employees to older investors. As a result, wealth gaps are widened, state and local tax burdens are increased, and college educations become less valuable.
Something must be done.
According to a federal pilot program, almost 9 in 10 illegal immigrants who’ve been recently released in the interior of the country while they wait for their asylum hearings haven’t appeared at their court dates.
For about six months now, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expanded its catch and release program of illegal immigrants and border jumpers, especially among those showing up at the southern border with children.
Since last December, the DHS has released no less than 190,500 illegal immigrants and border crossers into the interior of the country – a truly astounding figure.
Earlier this month, Kevin McAleenan, the current DHS Secretary, told Congress that of those immigrants are given work permits which allow them to take U.S. jobs while they wait for their asylum hearing.
Also earlier this month, while giving Congressional testimony, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials stated that the agency had recently carried out a pilot program with the Department of Justice (DOG) which examined just how many recently arrived illegal immigrants would actually appear at their asylum hearings after being released into the interior of the country.
The results were dismal.
An official from ICE told congressmen that approximately 87 percent of illegal immigrants – or nearly 9-in-10 – of those foreign nationals recently released into the country’s interior never showed up to their asylum hearings. Because the vast majority of recently arrived illegal immigrants aren’t appearing at their court dates, the ICE official said that the law enforcement agency is subsequently forced to struggle to locate and deport each illegal immigrant – a nearly impossible feat which puts an enormous strain on already strained federal resources.
“That particular population, as we continue to release into the interior hundreds if not thousands of family units into the interior every week, is of grave concern as it relates to these individuals not appearing before immigration judges and now being fugitives,” the ICE official told members of Congress.
Also during the same congressional hearing, another federal immigration official mentioned that only roughly 12 percent of illegal immigrants and border crossers who complete the processes required to file for asylum actually end up qualifying.
A statistic like this really highlights the widespread fraud and abuse that’s currently being perpetrated within the country’s immigration system.
If current rates of illegal immigration keep their course, it’s expected that border apprehensions in 2019 will exceed levels during each and every year of Barack Obama’s presidency. Meanwhile, since President Trump took office in 2016, DHS officials have stated that only around a measly 42 miles of – mostly replacement – border wall and border barriers has been constructed and erected.
In the months leading up to the crucial 2020 presidential election, it has become increasingly clear that American’s are ardently opposed to releasing illegal immigrants and border crossers into the interior of the country after they have been caught by authorities.
Repeatedly, Republican voters have asserted that building a border wall and drastically reducing both illegal and legal immigration is a top priority. It will be interesting to see how serious Trump is in enacting policies that will truly reflect the popular will of the people.
Last month, nearly 2 of 3 American voters told Harvard-Harris pollsters that they were against the catch and release of illegal immigrants and border crossers in the U.S. while they wait for their asylum court hearings. In the same poll, Trump supporters, conservatives, and Republican voters all placed reducing all immigration and building a border wall at the very top of their priorities.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that the people of the United States were never given a vote on whether or not they wanted unfettered and relentless mass immigration into the country which has unquestionably changed its cultural composition – perhaps forever.