President

Prez Candidate Officially Commits

HOUSTON, TX - For over a decade, mothers have given congressional testimony and pouring out their hearts about the preventable killings of their children and, yet, politicians have done nothing.  

In this light, an Open Letter was sent to all GOP Presidential Candidates.  
 
BREAKING NEWS:  An official statement has been given from the Donald Trump Presidential Campaign.

"Donald Trump, who has been honored to receive the endorsement of the Border Patrol Union, will always stand by the victims of illegal immigrant violence.  A Trump Administration will support this important initiative from the Remembrance Project to provide legal and support services to the surviving families, which can easily be funded by eliminating welfare payment to illegal immigrant households.  We will deliver justice for the families and, at last, put Americans first."

"We look forward to be of any assistance to Mr. Trump in facilitating the needs of our families.  We are very excited to have someone who has finally listened to Americans,"  said Maria Espinoza, National Director.

Read the Sean Hannity article posted today.

President Obama: Accessory to the Crimes Committed By Illegal Aliens?

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016, the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security conducted a hearing on the topic, “The Real Victims of a Reckless and Lawless Immigration Policy: Families and Survivors Speak Out on the Real Cost of This Administration’s Policies.”

I urge you to watch the entire video of that important hearing...

The witnesses at this hearing were: Sheriff Charles Jenkins of Frederick County, Maryland; Michelle Root, the mother of Sarah Root; Laura Wilkerson,  the mother of Joshua Wilkerson; and Bishop Minerva Carcaño of the United Methodist Church.

The timing of the hearing could not have been better because the day before, on Monday, April 18th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the administration's implementation of the DAPA program (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents)...

...President Obama stood in the White House Rose Garden to proclaim that “since Congress failed to act” he was going to take action. Of course to Obama, his concept of a "failure of Congress to act” was the refusal of Congress to pass bad legislation. When Congress votes down bad legislation, they most certainly are acting.

Obama also deceptively said that this was about children, kids and young people, even though illegal aliens as old as 31 years of age could apply for this program...

...Incidentally, I cannot pass up the opportunity to note that while the term “alien” has come under attack by Obama and his supporters, the open borders anarchists, the term “DREAMers” is derived from the acronym for the “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors” Act. 

The “a” in DREAMers stands for “aliens.” ...

The congressional hearing that was conducted on the heels of oral arguments at the Supreme Court illuminated the level of carnage that Obama's executive orders, policy decisions and misuse of prosecutorial discretion has unleashed on America and Americans.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, opened the hearing with his statement that set the stage and the tone for what would follow. Breitbart.com used one of Rep. Gowdy's statements as the title for the article “Trey Gowdy: More Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Crimes At Large in the U.S. Than The Population of Pittsburgh.” Gowdy noted that simply stating that there are more than 350,000 known criminal aliens at large throughout the United States is a statistic and statistics are often not persuasive, so he thought he needed to put that huge number in perspective. And, indeed, he did....

Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas had previously chaired the House Immigration Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee...

Smith's understandable outrage at the April 19th hearing became readily apparent when he stated rhetorically that he wondered if President Obama might be an accessory to the crimes committed by illegal aliens since he has implemented policies that he knows are going to result in the loss of life to innocent Americans, noting that the administration had released from custody some 100,000 aliens who had been convicted of committing serious crimes. He also noted that although it has been estimated that illegal aliens account for about 3% of the U.S. population, they account for 30% of all murders -- making illegal aliens 10 times more likely to commit murder than anyone else.

Congressman Smith came up with some additional staggering and infuriating statistics. He noted that of the 100,000 aliens that Obama had released from custody, 473 had been previously convicted of committing homicides, 375 of these criminal aliens had been convicted of kidnapping, 890 of these released criminal aliens had been previously convicted for committing sexual assaults and others of this stellar group of “pre-citizens” (the term I decided to use when, during the Carter administration all INS personnel were told to stop using the term “illegal alien” to describe aliens illegally present in the United States) had been previously convicted of committing 10,731 assaults...

As bad as these statistics are, Smith went on to report that since the release of these criminal aliens, many have gone on to further their criminal careers by committing 124 additional (known) homicides from 2010 until 2014 and an additional 1,423 sexual assaults.

Trey Gowdy noted that people tend to not pay attention to statistics so he decided to compare the number of criminal aliens currently at large with the population of a major U.S. city.

...two of the witnesses who testified at the congressional hearing, as I noted at the beginning of this article, were Michelle Root, the mother of Sarah Root, and Laura Wilkerson, the mother of Joshua Wilkerson.

Ms. Root and Ms. Wilkerson both lost their children to illegal aliens.

The title of a Breitbart.com news article posted on the day of the hearing was based on Michelle Root's poignant and heart-breaking prepared testimony at the hearing: “Mother of Daughter Killed by Illegal: His Bail Was ‘Less Than it Cost to Bury My Baby.’

The illegal alien in this case was released on bail and it is believed he fled to his native Honduras, availing himself use of the “escape hatch” foreign criminals and terrorists frequently avail themselves of: the ability to flee our nation to escape the long reach of the law.

The day after the hearing CNS News posted a report about the compelling testimony of Laura Wilkerson at that hearing in an article that summed up the anguished mother's demands of our elected “representatives.”

The title of that article was, “Mother of Teen Murdered by Illegal Immigrant Tells Congress: ‘Do Something – It Is Your Job.’

Wilkerson’s prepared testimony provided horrific details about the torture and murder of her high school student son by Hermilo Vildo Moralez, an illegal alien.

Sheriff Charles Jenkins of Frederick County, Maryland discussed how since the “surge” of “unaccompanied minors” the high schools and even lower grade schools have witnessed a massive increase in gang activity by those aliens who flooded across our southwest border. Sheriff Jenkins noted that the majority of those gang members who have been arrested arrived across that border after 2013...

Rep. Bob Goodlatte is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and participated in this hearing. His final statement in his prepared testimony will serve as the conclusion for my commentary today:

By releasing known criminal aliens and refusing to secure our border, the Administration has sent a clear message to the American people that their safety and security are far less important than ensuring that these individuals remain here. I want to see these dangerous policies stopped, and I will continue working to stand in the way of President Obama’s pen and phone. The real costs of illegal immigration are something no family should be forced to pay.

Not certain how your candidate stacks up on immigration issues?

Alert date: 
2016-04-24
Alert body: 

On the radio the other day, I heard Michael Medved touting to his audience that only a tiny portion of the American public is actually concerned about illegal immigration.  I disagree with him!  Often, if given a choice about concerns that voters have, illegal immigration will not be the first words out of their mouths.

But, voters will say they are concerned about terrorism, national security, JOBS, stagnant wages, over-crowded schools, high taxes, drugs, gangs, crime, the culture of corruption, the environmental impact on our environment of increased population and on and on.  Every one of their concerns is directly impacted by - hold on to your hat - illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.

This election cycle, it's more important than ever before, to fully understand your candidate's position on the issue of illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.  If you aren't asking, you may be surprised - and disappointed.

OFIR encourages our members to visit a candidate's website and discover if a detailed statement is posted about immigration,  If there is not, please contact that candidate and ask them to make a public statement on their website.  If, after a few pokes and reminders, there is still nothing posted, that might give you a clue as to their commitment to solving the problem.

OFIR has prepared information about Presidential candidates that may be useful to you. Information about candidates in state-wide races  may be helpful to you in approaching those candidates at upcoming events.  If you have more, credible information that can be substantiated, please share with OFIR.  As always, OFIR strives to be as accurate as possible in any information that we provide.

Another source of information is the Abigail Adams Candidate Comparison Guide

OFIR encourages you to learn more about the candidates from many sources.  OFIR invites candidates to let us know if there is anything they would like to add in our postings.

Call you Senators! Protect your family and your community!

Alert date: 
2016-04-22
Alert body: 
 

Call your Senators and urge them to oppose a vote on crime bill as currently written

There are a number of new reports surfacing that the Senate may try to move a highly-flawed criminal justice reform bill over the next few weeks. NumbersUSA takes no position on crime reform, but because the bill, as currently written, would largely benefit non-citizens who are incarcerated in federal prisons, and the Obama Administration has shown little interest in deporting criminal aliens, we're urging Congress not to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

The Criminal Justice reform bill, S.2123, would reduce the sentences for certain individuals who have been convicted for federal crimes; that's an important distinction to point out -- this bill would only impact federal prisons. It would have no impact on state, county, or local jails.

According to federal data, 25% of all federal trafficking convictions and 77% of all federal drug possession convictions in 2015 were handed down to non-citizens. The criminal alien who killed California Detective Michael Davis, Jr. and Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver was convicted of federal drug offenses before being released from prison.

In FY2015, the Obama Administration released 60% of the criminal aliens it came in contact with. If S.2123 passes in its current form, it would result in the release of thousands of more criminal aliens onto the streets. Several open-borders groups have already petitioned the Obama Administration, asking for any criminal aliens who are released should the law be passed be considered for Deferred Action (protection from deportations).

Please call your two U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose a vote on S.2123, the criminal justice reform bill because it could potentially release thousands of criminal aliens onto the streets.

Capitol Switchboard -- (202) 224-3121

You can call your Senators by dialing the Switchboard number above and asking the operator to be connected to your Senators' offices.

 

Supreme Court must rebuke Obama's self-coronation: Texas AG

The president of the United States of America has declared that unlawful conduct is lawful.

It sounds unbelievable when you say it out loud, doesn’t it? The president, the person we trust to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, has declared illegal conduct to be legal?

But in 2014, President Obama did just that. He declared that four million unlawfully-present immigrants were now lawfully-present. How? Because he says so.

Unfortunately for the president, the Constitution does not let him do that. And on April 18, Texas will lead a coalition of 26 states before the United States Supreme Court to stop President Obama’s illegal immigration policy.

This lawsuit should not be groundbreaking. It is a question that was decided at the nation’s founding. Can one person unilaterally change the law?

Of course not. Our Founders drafted the Constitution to make clear that the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, have the authority to decide immigration policy for the United States.

In 2011, President Obama understood this. When asked about immigration reform, he addressed his supporters honestly, explaining that “I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own ... But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

But in 2014, the president was singing a different tune. He announced to the world, with a flick of his pen on an executive order, “I just took an action to change the law.”

The president had it right the first time. He did not have the power to unilaterally change the law. He does not have the power to override the will of the people as vested in our Constitution.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 47, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Make no mistake, this is about more than just immigration. If this blatant power-grab goes unchecked, nothing would stop a president from issuing an executive order dissolving the rights of gun owners in violation of the Second Amendment, nullifying the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment or abolishing any other right that we hold dear.

Madison warned against one person deciding for the entire nation what the law shall be. It is the antithesis of who we are as Americans. In this country, the people, through their representatives, decide the law — not one person.

Or as President Obama once put it, “I am president. I am not a king. I can’t do these things just by myself.”

Exactly.

Ken Paxton is the Attorney General of Texas.

Obama's immigration order overreaches: Our view

Sometimes it seems the Supreme Court’s main purpose these days is to resolve disputes between Republicans and President Obama.

Toward the end of Obama’s first term, the court ruled on a challenge to his signature health care law. On Monday, as Obama approaches the end of his second term, the justices are set to consider his executive order that would allow millions of undocumented workers to avoid deportation.

Obama won the first of these cases. The court ruled, correctly in our view, that Obamacare's insurance mandate did not violate the Constitution. The president's backers hope and believe that the court will take a similar tack in U.S. v. Texas, finding that the case is a political squabble dressed up as a legal dispute.

That, however, would be a mistake.

To be sure, Obama’s quest to reform the immigration system is a worthy cause. Keeping millions of undocumented immigrants in a state of legal limbo makes little sense.

Like his predecessor, George W. Bush, Obama backed legislation to grant these immigrants a path to legal status while beefing up border enforcement and making needed changes to the legal immigration system. That legislation passed with bipartisan support in the Senate but ran into a buzz saw of opposition from conservatives in the House.

Faced with legislative gridlock, the president acted unilaterally. Obama’s 2014 order, known as the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, combined with a predecessor order he issued two years earlier, would allow as many as 5 million of the estimated 11 million undocumented people to remain in the United States without fear of deportation.

While courts have typically given great deference to presidents in matters of immigration, this is simply too sweeping a policy change to exclude the legislative branch. It does the right thing in the wrong way.

The order has many flaws. Because it could be rescinded by a future president, it would not give immigrants the certainty they'd need to come out from the shadows and fully participate in their communities. Because it addresses only undocumented workers, it would do nothing for backlogs in legal immigration and a shortage of skilled workers.

The order's biggest flaw, however, is the precedent it would set by giving the president sweeping authority to interpret immigration laws virtually any way he or she sees fit. The same people who think Obama should have broad powers over immigration enforcement will feel a lot differently if a Republican wins the White House in November.

Imagine what orders Ted Cruz or Donald Trump would issue if elected president. Trump has advocated mass deportations, temporarily banning entry of foreign Muslims, and building a border wall financed by confiscating the remittances that undocumented workers attempt to send to their families back home.

In an interview with NBC News this year, Trump said he wouldn't hesitate to issue executive orders, noting that Obama had “led the way” with his actions.

The court would be wise to limit the president's authority in this area, and leave Congress and the White House to work out through the legislative process how to handle undocumented immigrants, as maddening as that might be.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.
 

Are we getting the whole story about refugee resettlement?

News Times

Influx of refugees would affect needy Oregonians

March 16, 2016

by Richard F. LaMountain, a Cedar Mill resident, serves as vice president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform.

The work of Medical Teams International — the Tigard-based group that aids, among other refugees, Syrians who have fled to Greece and Lebanon — merits Oregonians’ support. What does not, however, is the view of Jeff Pinneo, the group’s CEO, that many of those refugees should be brought to America (“Syrian refugees need our help,” News-Times, March 2).

One major reason: destitute Syrians, some 10,000 of whom the Obama administration hopes to resettle in the United States this fiscal year, would compete for the jobs and housing needed by our own poorest citizens. Given Gov. Kate Brown’s recent statement that Oregon “will ... open the doors of opportunity” to those refugees, a good number of them may come here — to a state in which some 16 percent of residents, as the U.S. Census Bureau estimated recently, already lives in poverty.

How would Syrian refugees impact those neediest Oregonians?

For many in our state, well-paying, full-time work remains elusive. Earlier this year, the Oregon Employment Department reported that 200,000-plus state residents were unemployed, “marginally attached to the labor force” or “employed part-time for economic reasons.” In Washington County, wrote Pamplin Media’s Peter Wong earlier this month, “40 percent of ... jobs are either low-wage or part-time.”

But local refugee-assistance groups, among them the taxpayer-subsidized Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization, work aggressively to place refugees into local jobs. Would it be fair to needy Oregonians, who lack the advocacy and support networks new refugees have, to import Syrians to compete with them for decent livelihoods?

Also consider: Our region is gripped by an affordable-housing crisis. In Portland last year, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported, “the Portland Housing Bureau ... found the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment was $1,182.” The city has a shortage, OPB noted, of some 24,000 units “affordable to the lowest-income renters” (those available for $750 a month or less).

Every night in Portland, The Oregonian reported last month, some 1,900 people sleep on sidewalks, in doorways and under bridges.

And yet, according to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, in a recent five-year period close to a quarter of refugees received housing assistance. Do low-income Oregonians need an influx of poor Syrians to vie with them for affordable shelter?

And what of Oregon’s schoolchildren? Late last year, the state legislature’s Joint Special Committee on Public Education Appropriation determined that the 2015-17 elementary and secondary State School Fund, at some $7.4 billion, was almost $1.8 billion short of the amount needed “to reach the state’s educational goals.” Why, then, should we import Syrian children, most of whom would need expensive supplemental English instruction, to siphon off education dollars needed by the state’s American children?

“Since 1975,” notes the Oregon Department of Human Services, “tens of thousands of refugees have resettled in Oregon.” Accepting more today, however, would harm many of our youngest and poorest fellow citizens. Let’s applaud Pinneo’s help for refugees abroad, but resist his suggestion that we bring them here. Instead, let’s work to improve the lives of our own neediest — the fellow Americans to whom we owe our first and foremost responsibility.

Read the original article.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFIR member Paul Nachman, is a retired physicist, volunteers in a research group at Montana State University-Bozeman and is a founding member of Montanans for Immigration Law Enforcement (www.MontanaMILE.org).

The Missoulian

Be skeptical of refugee supporters' claims

March 17, 2016

Mary Poole of Soft Landing Missoula opened her Feb. 25th opinion (“Facts show Missoula can safely welcome refugees”) by asserting that her subject is “surrounded by a lot of misinformation.” She followed that with her own barrage of misleading information.

For example, on the subject of vetting prospective refugees for the dangers they may pose to us, Poole highlights the “18- to 24-month multi-step process” that’s involved. But as Kelly Gauger of the State Department’s Refugee Admissions office explained last October, “We’re not spending 18 months doing security checks. … At any given time, we’ve got something like a quarter-million people churning through the system.” In other words, it’s like everyone’s experience at the Motor Vehicle Department—you wait in line for an hour, yet your own business takes just a few minutes.

Poole also thinks that the vetting agencies have matters well under control, quoting FBI Director James Comey that “we have gotten much better as an intelligence community at … checking our databases in a way that gives us high confidence.” That’s a very incomplete picture, though, as Comey testified to the House Homeland Security Committee in October: “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has not made a ripple in the pond … on a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until the cows come home, but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person.”

Beyond the specific matter of refugee resettlement, today’s U.S. government demonstrates seemingly universal incompetence, from Transportation Security Administration airport screeners’ 95 percent failure rate at intercepting test contraband to the slack immigration vetting of San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik to the Environmental Protection Agency’s flooding Colorado’s Animas River with orange, toxic mine waste. So who believes that, with hard-to-investigate refugees, suddenly the feds will perform?

Then there’s the matter of International Rescue Committee’s specific designs on Missoula; Poole reports that IRC considers the city a good candidate to absorb about 100 refugees per year. What the enthusiasts at Soft Landing—and the Missoula County commissioners, who support the idea—might not realize is that, once it’s started, they’ll have zero control over the process. That’ll be up to the State Department and IRC.

In the experience of many small cities around the country (e.g. Amarillo, Texas; Springfield, Massachusetts; Manchester, New Hampshire), the resulting local impacts can be daunting and onerous. After a spell, they find their schools and social-services agencies begging for relief from the influx.

Consider the ordeal of Lynn, Massachusetts, a city of 90,000 just north of Boston with a school district serving 15,000 students. Lynn’s schools took in about 500 students from Central America between 2011 and 2014. One might think such an increase in school population of “only” 3.5 percent wouldn’t be a big deal, but that’s not how it’s worked out for the city.

As Mayor Judith Kennedy told an audience at the National Press Club in August 2014, her health department had to curtail inspection services to afford the surge in immunizations needed by the schools’ new arrivals. She had to end an effective, gang-suppressing community-policing program to free up resources for the schools. With many of the arrivals illiterate in any language, the schools needed many more classroom aides along with interpreters. (The school district’s website broadcasts the availability of translation services in Arabic, Creole, Khmer and Spanish.) Altogether, Kennedy had to shrink every other department’s 2015 budget by 2 to 5 percent from its 2014 level to accommodate a 9.3 percent increase in school funding.

(Lynn’s influx includes—besides refugees—illegal aliens and ordinary immigrants, but all three categories of arrivals from third world countries impose comparable burdens on taxpayers.)

Such costs for translators and interpreters are an unfunded mandate the national government levies on states and localities, applicable to court proceedings, too. The requirement is open-ended. For example, in 2014 Manchester, New Hampshire, got in trouble with the feds in a school-expulsion case by failing to provide an interpreter for Dinka, the language of South Sudan.

For these and other reasons, Montanans might view Soft Landing’s proselytizing for refugee resettlement with great skepticism.

Read the original article.

 

Free to Kill: 124 Criminal Aliens Released By Obama Policies Charged with Homicide Since 2010

WASHINGTON, DC (March 14, 2016) — New information released to the Senate Judiciary Committee quantifies the public safety impact of the Obama administration's lenient approach to immigration enforcement, in which thousands of criminal aliens are allowed to remain at large each year instead of detained and processed for prompt deportation.   Criminal aliens released by ICE between 2010 and 2015 have been charged with 124 new homicides and thousands of other crimes that harm citizens and degrade the quality of life in American communities.

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that only a tiny percentage of the released criminals have been removed. Only 3 percent of the criminal aliens released in 2014 have been removed, with most receiving the most generous forms of due process available, and are allowed to remain at large, without supervision, while they await drawn-out immigration hearings.

The vast majority (124) of these criminal aliens were released in California. In addition, 16 were released in Arizona, six in Texas, three in Florida, two in Georgia, and one each in North Carolina, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon.

 

View the report and graphics showing crimes by state: http://cis.org/vaughan/Map-124-criminal-aliens-released-obama-policies-charged-homicide-2010

“The Obama administration appears to be indifferent to the harm its policies are inflicting in American communities,” says CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan, who reviewed the ICE documents provided to the Senate committee.  “Many of these releases could be prevented.  Instead, the administration allows funded detention space to go unused, declines to use efficient forms of due process for criminals, and shifts millions of dollars that Congress provided for enforcement to other purposes.  In addition, they have failed to take action against recalcitrant countries that won’t accept the return of their deported citizens.” 


Inexplicably, ICE is choosing to release some criminal aliens multiple times. Two of them had homicide-related convictions even before they were released. These aliens had 464 criminal convictions prior to release by ICE, ranging from drug crimes to DUI and other driving offenses to larceny and theft.

This tally does not include aliens who were released by sanctuary jurisdictions, nor those aliens that were released by local law enforcement agencies after ICE declined to take them into custody due to Obama administration prioritization policies. This list includes only those aliens that ICE arrested and then released.

ICE reported that there are 156 criminal aliens who were released at least twice by ICE since 2013. Between them, these criminals had 1,776 convictions before their first release in 2013, with burglary, larceny, and drug possession listed most frequently.

Without the congressional inquiry into criminal alien crime, the public would not have this Immigration status information from ICE, which should be reported on a routine basis by all law enforcement agencies. Legislation has been introduced by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) that would remedy this problem. 

Contact: Marguerite Telford
202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org


 

Backsliding on communicable diseases brought to the US by illegal aliens

Rick Oltman has described, in no uncertain terms, the threats brought right into our nation's living room by the utter disregard for the well being of the citizens of this great country.

----------------------

A Weapon of Mass Destruction – A Weapon of Cultural Destruction?

By Rick Oltman, February 29, 2016

Back as early as the mid-1990s, parents of grade schoolers in California were learning that diseases that were once believed to have been eliminated were back in the public schools.  Head lice was epidemic in many schools.  Products, once discontinued, were brought back to market to deal with the disgusting infection.

Measles and whooping cough were spreading rapidly.  To many Californians, the cause was obvious:   illegal alien students were bringing these infections back into the schools...

Scarlet fever also reappeared.

A polio-like disease caused partial paralysis in California children.

Remember H1N1, aka “swine flu,” from a few years ago?...

We seemed to have escaped widespread infection from Ebola.  Will it be the same with the Zika virus?

More recently, as a result of the massive influx of (not only) illegal alien children from Central America who were not being medically screened, the U.S. has had outbreaks of other illnesses that were once eradicated; TB:  Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox and Smallpox.

MDR – TB, multiple drug resistant tuberculosis, rampant in South East Asia, has been coming across the southern border for years.

Multiple drug resistant diseases are the result of improper use and overuse of antibiotics.  Evolution and natural selection can produce organisms that we cannot defeat.  And, in an environment where diseases can travel halfway around the world in a single day, the possibility of an outbreak of a deadly epidemic is as real as your worse science fiction nightmare.

However, just this week, Health and Human Services has announced that in a month, on March 28th, three sexually transmitted infections will no longer bar you from entering our country....

What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD)?

WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons:  chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive.

WMD is defined in U.S. law (18 USC §2332a) as “Any weapon involving a disease organism.” ...

Now, ask yourself, “What possible benefit to America is there in allowing people infected with communicable diseases to come into our country, legally or illegally?  What possible explanation can there be for a government to be so irresponsible as to expose our populace to any disease like those listed above?”

Read the full article at USInc.com

EXCLUSIVE — ANN COULTER WARNS ‘END OF AMERICA’ IF MARCO RUBIO IS NOMINEE

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News ahead of the New Hampshire primary, conservative columnist and eleven-time New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter warned that if the donor-class gets its way and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the Republican nominee, it will be the “end of America.”

“THE END OF AMERICA,” Coulter wrote when asked what she thought a Rubio nominee would mean for the future of the open borders movement.

“Rubio is [John] McCain is sheep’s clothing,” Coulter explained. “He’s the Manchurian candidate. At least with McCain, conservatives knew we were getting an open borders zealot and just made the calculation that he could win. Rubio has half the conservative movement thinking he’s Reagan. I’ve never seen anything like it. He’s McCain without the war record or experience.”

In a 15-page memo documenting Rubio’s “betrayal” of conservatives, living legend and grassroots heroine Phyllis Schlafly seemed to echo Coulter’s assertion. Schlafly’s memo states:

There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) . They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy. But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them. The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy. And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference. The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio. Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it. This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate. The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress… there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio… Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.

In her memo, Schlafly documented Rubio’s history of successfully deceiving conservatives. Schlalfy notes that Rubio, without any seeming compunction, “repeatedly lied” to conservative media and opinion makers who trusted him: “His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.”

Schlafly’s memo continues:

The seminal moment of the media tour occurred early, on Rush Limbaugh’s show. He [Rubio] declared: “If there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.” Of course, we know there wasn’t any such language but he voted for it anyway. But this promise — and many others — and the calculated neutralization of conservative media, helped Schumer get 68 votes. But conservatives trusted Rubio. Limbaugh declared: ‘you are meeting everybody honestly.’

Rubio told [Sean] Hannity, on his media tour that: “I don’t think any of that [amnesty] begins until we certify that the border security progress has been real. That a workplace enforcement mechanism is in place. That we are tracking visitors to our country, especially when they exit.” This prompted Hannity to reply: “It’s probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore.” At this point, it looked like the biggest mass immigration plan in history would breeze through Congress — all without Rubio saying a word about what was really in the heart of the bill: the largest immigration expansion in American history. To this day, Rubio will not answer if asked about how many green cards his bill gave out.”

Like Coulter, Schlafly has previously warned that if immigration is not stopped: We’re not going to be America anymore.”

If we don’t stop immigration—this torrent of immigrants coming in—we’re not going to be America anymore because most of the people coming in have no experience with limited government. They don’t know what that is. They look to the government to solve all of their problems, and as soon as we have a high majority of people who think that, it’s going to be a different country.

To this day, Rubio continues to support giving citizenship to illegal immigrants, substantially expanding visa issuances for foreign guest workers, increasing refugee resettlement, and surging immigration beyond all known historical precedent.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - President